Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 10:12:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth
Message-ID: <Y381i3/BwtW6edlS@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221117005418.3499691-1-joshdon@google.com>
 <Y3d+1a9AEnWaxFwq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABk29NtSmXVCvkdpymeam7AYmXhZy2JLYLPFTdKpk5g6AN1-zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y3xnUhjSb56ex9XX@ziqianlu-desk2>
 <CABk29Ntdztkv4jT87vFgTtC99d49iUu9CcHPruh9MxDazaAW7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABk29Ntdztkv4jT87vFgTtC99d49iUu9CcHPruh9MxDazaAW7A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:41:04AM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (local_unthrottle) {
> > > +               rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
> > > +               rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
> >
> > Should we add:
> >                 if (cfs_rq_throttled(local_unthrottle))
> >
> > before calling into unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(local_unthrottle) to avoid a
> > potential WARN?
> >
> > As for whether the local cfs_rq can be unthrottled now after rq lock is
> > re-acquired, I suppose it can be. e.g. another user sets a new quota to
> > this task group during the window of rq lock gets dropped in the above
> > loop and re-acquired here IIUC.
> >
> > > +               unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(local_unthrottle);
> > > +               rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > >         return throttled;
> > >  }
> 
> Yes, we should add that check due to the case you described with a
> user concurrently configuring bandwidth. And as long as we're doing
> that, we might as well make this unthrottle_cfs_rq() instead and snip
> the comment. Peter, would you mind adding that delta?

Done, should be pushed into the queue.git thing momentarily.