lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] sched/deadline: sched_getattr() returns absolute dl-task information
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:09:47PM +0200, Alessio Balsini wrote:

Joel nailed it wrt the Changelog, that needs improvement.


> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index fbfc3f1d368a..f75a4169cd47 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -2568,13 +2568,41 @@ void __setparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, const struct sched_attr *attr)
> dl_se->dl_density = to_ratio(dl_se->dl_deadline, dl_se->dl_runtime);
> }
>
> -void __getparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_attr *attr)
> +void __getparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int flags)
> {
> struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se = &p->dl;
>
> attr->sched_priority = p->rt_priority;
> - attr->sched_runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
> - attr->sched_deadline = dl_se->dl_deadline;
> +
> + if (flags & SCHED_GETATTR_FLAGS_DL_ABSOLUTE) {
> + /*
> + * If the task is not running, its runtime is already
> + * properly accounted. Otherwise, update clocks and the
> + * statistics for the task.
> + */
> + if (task_running(task_rq(p), p)) {
> + struct rq_flags rf;
> + struct rq *rq;
> +
> + rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> + sched_clock_tick();

This isn't required here. The reason it is used elsewhere is because
those are interrupts, but this is a system call, the clock state should
be good.

> + update_rq_clock(rq);
> + task_tick_dl(rq, p, 0);

Do we really want task_tick_dl() here, or update_curr_dl()? Also, who
says the task still is dl ? :-)

> + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * If the task is throttled, this value could be negative,
> + * but sched_runtime is unsigned.
> + */
> + attr->sched_runtime = dl_se->runtime <= 0 ? 0 : dl_se->runtime;
> + attr->sched_deadline = dl_se->deadline;

This is all very racy..

Even if the task wasn't running when you did the task_running() test, it
could be running now. And if it was running, it might not be running
anymore by the time you've acquired the rq->lock.

On 32bit reading these numbers without locks is broken to boot. And even
on 64bit, I suppose you can a consistent snapshot of runtime and
deadline together, which isn't possible without the locks.

And of course, by the time we get back to userspace, the returned values
will be out-of-date anyway. But that isn't to be helped I suppose.


> + } else {
> + attr->sched_runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
> + attr->sched_deadline = dl_se->dl_deadline;
> + }
> +
> attr->sched_period = dl_se->dl_period;
> attr->sched_flags = dl_se->flags;
> }

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-23 11:50    [W:0.066 / U:3.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site