Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   bsegall@google.com
To:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sync expires_seq in distribute_cfs_runtime()
References: <20180728002409.5781-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
        <ef0e1185-51d6-0707-cda4-6f2ea987b651@linux.alibaba.com>
        <CAM_iQpVeK2VQDuahreZC2-L4eEzx0WtD8Bz=oHH68VSAiMqLGQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <fad5ebe6-ec49-c67b-7b4f-78a413723aa8@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:13:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <fad5ebe6-ec49-c67b-7b4f-78a413723aa8@linux.alibaba.com> (Xunlei
        Pang's message of "Tue, 31 Jul 2018 22:58:49 +0800")
Message-ID: <xm26ftzz8h0r.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> writes:

> On 7/31/18 1:55 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:29 PM Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Cong,
>>>
>>> On 7/28/18 8:24 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> Each time we sync cfs_rq->runtime_expires with cfs_b->runtime_expires,
>>>> we should sync its ->expires_seq too. However it is missing
>>>> for distribute_cfs_runtime(), especially the slack timer call path.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's a problem, as expires_seq will get synced in
>>> assign_cfs_rq_runtime().
>> 
>> Sure, but there is a small window during which they are not synced.
>> Why do you want to wait until the next assign_cfs_rq_runtime() when
>> you already know runtime_expires is synced?
>> 
>> Also, expire_cfs_rq_runtime() is called before assign_cfs_rq_runtime()
>> inside __account_cfs_rq_runtime(), which means the check of
>> cfs_rq->expires_seq is not accurate for unthrottling case if the clock
>> drift happens soon enough?
>> 
>
> expire_cfs_rq_runtime():
>     if (cfs_rq->expires_seq == cfs_b->expires_seq) {
>         /* extend local deadline, drift is bounded above by 2 ticks */
>         cfs_rq->runtime_expires += TICK_NSEC;
>     } else {
>         /* global deadline is ahead, expiration has passed */
>         cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
>     }
>
> So if clock drift happens soon, then expires_seq decides the correct
> thing we should do: if cfs_b->expires_seq advanced, then clear the stale
> cfs_rq->runtime_remaining from the slack timer of the past period, then
> assign_cfs_rq_runtime() will refresh them afterwards, otherwise it is a
> real clock drift. I am still not getting where the race is?

Nothing /important/ goes wrong because distribute_cfs_runtime only fills
runtime_remaining up to 1, not a real amount.