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;
From:   Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
To:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] sched/core: Avoid multiple calling update_rq_clock() in unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs()
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:20:12 +0800
Message-Id: <20230613082012.49615-5-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230613082012.49615-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
References: <20230613082012.49615-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

This WARN_DOUBLE_CLOCK warning is triggered during cpu offline.
------------[ cut here ]------------
rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_UPDATED
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3323 at kernel/sched/core.c:741
update_rq_clock+0xaf/0x180
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 unthrottle_cfs_rq+0x4b/0x300
 rq_offline_fair+0x89/0x90
 set_rq_offline.part.118+0x28/0x60
 rq_attach_root+0xc4/0xd0
 cpu_attach_domain+0x3dc/0x7f0
 partition_sched_domains_locked+0x2a5/0x3c0
 rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x477/0x830
 rebuild_sched_domains+0x1b/0x30
 cpuset_hotplug_workfn+0x2ca/0xc90
 ? balance_push+0x56/0xf0
 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x15/0x30
 ? finish_task_switch+0x98/0x2f0
 ? __switch_to+0x291/0x410
 ? __schedule+0x65e/0x1310
 process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3d0
 worker_thread+0x4c/0x380
 ? preempt_count_add+0x92/0xa0
 ? rescuer_thread+0x310/0x310
 kthread+0xe6/0x110
 ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

The rq clock has been updated in the set_rq_offline(),
so we don't need to call update_rq_clock() in
unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs().
We only need to call rq_clock_start_loop_update() before the
loop starts and rq_clock_stop_loop_update() after the loop
to avoid this warning.

Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index af9604f4b135..4da5f3541762 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6124,6 +6124,13 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
 
 	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
 
+	/*
+	 * The rq clock has already been updated in the
+	 * set_rq_offline(), so we should skip updating
+	 * the rq clock again in unthrottle_cfs_rq().
+	 */
+	rq_clock_start_loop_update(rq);
+
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tg, &task_groups, list) {
 		struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
@@ -6146,6 +6153,8 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
 			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	rq_clock_stop_loop_update(rq);
 }
 
 #else /* CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH */
-- 
2.20.1