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:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:18:05 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, 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, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] sched/core: Avoid double calling
 update_rq_clock() in __balance_push_cpu_stop()
Message-ID: <20230616091805.GJ83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230613082012.49615-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
 <20230613082012.49615-3-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
 <20230615123950.GF1683497@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b4fcf354-f6ee-be68-1608-8b874511785a@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b4fcf354-f6ee-be68-1608-8b874511785a@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:

> I'm afraid not, the rq clock also needs to be updated before
> select_fallback_rq() is called.

> If we just remove update_rq_clock() from __balance_push_cpu_stop(), we will
> get this warning.
> 
> 
> [ 1260.960166] rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
> [ 1260.960170] WARNING: CPU: 25 PID: 196 at kernel/sched/sched.h:1496
> update_curr+0xf6/0x1f0
> 
> [ 1260.960318] Call Trace:
> [ 1260.960320]  <TASK>
> [ 1260.960359]  dequeue_entity+0x3b/0x410
> [ 1260.960361]  dequeue_task_fair+0xc7/0x3c0
> [ 1260.960363]  dequeue_task+0x30/0xf0
> [ 1260.960365]  __do_set_cpus_allowed+0x94/0x130
> [ 1260.960366]  do_set_cpus_allowed+0x38/0x60
> [ 1260.960368]  cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback+0x70/0x80
> [ 1260.960372]  select_fallback_rq+0x20f/0x250            <----

Urgh... :-(