nohz/full, sched/rt: Fix missed tick-reenabling bug in sched_can_stop…

…_tick()

Chris Metcalf reported a that sched_can_stop_tick() sometimes fails to
re-enable the tick.

His observed problem is that rq->cfs.nr_running can be 1 even though
there are multiple runnable CFS tasks. This happens in the cgroup
case, in which case cfs.nr_running is the number of runnable entities
for that level.

If there is a single runnable cgroup (which can have an arbitrary
number of runnable child entries itself) rq->cfs.nr_running will be 1.

However, looking at that function I think there's more problems with it.

It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is
incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which
case the RR task will run.

So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after
the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use
fifo_nr_running like this.

Reported-by: Chris Metcalf <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Chris Metcalf <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
Cc: Luiz Capitulino <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Vince Weaver <[email protected]>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]>
Fixes: 76d92ac ("sched: Migrate sched to use new tick dependency mask model")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

kernel/sched/core.c

@@ -596,17 +596,8 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
 		return false;
 
 	/*
-	 * FIFO realtime policy runs the highest priority task (after DEADLINE).
-	 * Other runnable tasks are of a lower priority. The scheduler tick
-	 * isn't needed.
-	 */
-	fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
-	if (fifo_nr_running)
-		return true;
-
-	/*
-	 * Round-robin realtime tasks time slice with other tasks at the same
-	 * realtime priority.
+	 * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to effect the
+	 * actual RR behaviour.
 	 */
 	if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
 		if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
@@ -615,8 +606,20 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
 			return false;
 	}
 
-	/* Normal multitasking need periodic preemption checks */
-	if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 1)
+	/*
+	 * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
+	 * forced preemption between FIFO tasks.
+	 */
+	fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
+	if (fifo_nr_running)
+		return true;
+
+	/*
+	 * If there are no DL,RR/FIFO tasks, there must only be CFS tasks left;
+	 * if there's more than one we need the tick for involuntary
+	 * preemption.
+	 */
+	if (rq->nr_running > 1)
 		return false;
 
 	return true;