Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: sched: Fix rq->next_balance time updated to earlier than current time

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:04:58AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In traces on newidle_balance(), this_rq->next_balance
> time goes backward and earlier than current time jiffies, e.g.
> 
> 11.602 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb76c jiffies=0x1004fb739
> 11.624 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb731 jiffies=0x1004fb739
> 13.856 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb76c jiffies=0x1004fb73b
> 13.910 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb731 jiffies=0x1004fb73b
> 14.637 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb76c jiffies=0x1004fb73c
> 14.666 (         ): probe:newidle_balance:(ffffffff810d2470) this_rq=0xffff88fe7f8aae00 next_balance=0x1004fb731 jiffies=0x1004fb73c

No explanation of what these numbers mean, or where they're taken from.

> It doesn't make sense to have a next_balance in the past.
> Fix newidle_balance() and update_next_balance() so the next
> balance time is at least jiffies+1.

The changelog is deficient in that it doesn't explain how the times end
up in the past, therefore we cannot evaluate if the provided solution is
sufficient etc..

> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index a162b0ec8963..1050037578a9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10138,7 +10138,10 @@ update_next_balance(struct sched_domain *sd, unsigned long *next_balance)
>  
>  	/* used by idle balance, so cpu_busy = 0 */
>  	interval = get_sd_balance_interval(sd, 0);
> -	next = sd->last_balance + interval;
> +	if (time_after(jiffies+1, sd->last_balance + interval))
> +		next = jiffies+1;
> +	else
> +		next = sd->last_balance + interval;
>  
>  	if (time_after(*next_balance, next))
>  		*next_balance = next;
> @@ -10974,6 +10977,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  
>  out:
>  	/* Move the next balance forward */
> +	if (time_after(jiffies+1, this_rq->next_balance))
> +		this_rq->next_balance = jiffies+1;

jiffies roll over here..

Also, what's the point of the update_next_balance() addition in the face
of this one? AFAICT this hunk completely renders the other hunk useless.

>  	if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
>  		this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;

and you've violated your own premise :-)

Now, this pattern is repeated throughout, if it's a problem here, why
isn't it a problem in say rebalance_domains() ?

Can we please unify the code across sites instead of growing different
hacks in different places?