kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +- kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 ++++++--------- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
When a cfs_rq is to be throttled, its limbo list should be empty and
that's why there is a warn in tg_throttle_down() for non empty
cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list.
When running a test with the following hierarchy:
root
/ \
A* ...
/ | \ ...
B
/ \
C*
where both A and C have quota settings, that warn on non empty limbo list
is triggered for a cfs_rq of C, let's call it cfs_rq_c(and ignore the cpu
part of the cfs_rq for the sake of simpler representation).
Debug showed it happened like this:
Task group C is created and quota is set, so in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(),
cfs_rq_c is initialized with runtime_enabled set, runtime_remaining
equals to 0 and *unthrottled*. Before any tasks are enqueued to cfs_rq_c,
*multiple* throttled tasks can migrate to cfs_rq_c (e.g., due to task
group changes). When enqueue_task_fair(cfs_rq_c, throttled_task) is
called and cfs_rq_c is in a throttled hierarchy (e.g., A is throttled),
these throttled tasks are directly placed into cfs_rq_c's limbo list by
enqueue_throttled_task().
Later, when A is unthrottled, tg_unthrottle_up(cfs_rq_c) enqueues these
tasks. The first enqueue triggers check_enqueue_throttle(), and with zero
runtime_remaining, cfs_rq_c can be throttled in throttle_cfs_rq() if it
can't get more runtime and enters tg_throttle_down(), where the warning
is hit due to remaining tasks in the limbo list.
I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
---
v3: grant cfs_rq 1ns runtime on quota set as suggested by Ben, thanks!
kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 ++++++---------
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index f1ebf67b48e21..f754a60de8484 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
guard(rq_lock_irq)(rq);
cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
- cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
+ cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
if (cfs_rq->throttled)
unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 25970dbbb2795..5b752324270b0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6024,20 +6024,17 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
struct sched_entity *se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
/*
- * It's possible we are called with !runtime_remaining due to things
- * like user changed quota setting(see tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()) or async
- * unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other still
- * running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
+ * It's possible we are called with runtime_remaining < 0 due to things
+ * like async unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other
+ * still running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
*
- * Anyway, we can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining
- * because any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a
- * throttle, which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
+ * We can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining because
+ * any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a throttle,
+ * which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
*/
if (cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0)
return;
- se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
-
cfs_rq->throttled = 0;
update_rq_clock(rq);
--
2.39.5
Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> writes:
> When a cfs_rq is to be throttled, its limbo list should be empty and
> that's why there is a warn in tg_throttle_down() for non empty
> cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list.
>
> When running a test with the following hierarchy:
>
> root
> / \
> A* ...
> / | \ ...
> B
> / \
> C*
>
> where both A and C have quota settings, that warn on non empty limbo list
> is triggered for a cfs_rq of C, let's call it cfs_rq_c(and ignore the cpu
> part of the cfs_rq for the sake of simpler representation).
>
> Debug showed it happened like this:
> Task group C is created and quota is set, so in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(),
> cfs_rq_c is initialized with runtime_enabled set, runtime_remaining
> equals to 0 and *unthrottled*. Before any tasks are enqueued to cfs_rq_c,
> *multiple* throttled tasks can migrate to cfs_rq_c (e.g., due to task
> group changes). When enqueue_task_fair(cfs_rq_c, throttled_task) is
> called and cfs_rq_c is in a throttled hierarchy (e.g., A is throttled),
> these throttled tasks are directly placed into cfs_rq_c's limbo list by
> enqueue_throttled_task().
>
> Later, when A is unthrottled, tg_unthrottle_up(cfs_rq_c) enqueues these
> tasks. The first enqueue triggers check_enqueue_throttle(), and with zero
> runtime_remaining, cfs_rq_c can be throttled in throttle_cfs_rq() if it
> can't get more runtime and enters tg_throttle_down(), where the warning
> is hit due to remaining tasks in the limbo list.
>
> I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
> of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
> this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
> cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
> and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
>
> Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
> unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
> While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
>
> Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
> Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
> ---
> v3: grant cfs_rq 1ns runtime on quota set as suggested by Ben, thanks!
>
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 ++++++---------
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f1ebf67b48e21..f754a60de8484 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
>
> guard(rq_lock_irq)(rq);
> cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
> - cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
> + cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
>
> if (cfs_rq->throttled)
> unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 25970dbbb2795..5b752324270b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6024,20 +6024,17 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> struct sched_entity *se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
>
> /*
> - * It's possible we are called with !runtime_remaining due to things
> - * like user changed quota setting(see tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()) or async
> - * unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other still
> - * running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
> + * It's possible we are called with runtime_remaining < 0 due to things
> + * like async unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other
> + * still running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
> *
> - * Anyway, we can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining
> - * because any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a
> - * throttle, which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
> + * We can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining because
> + * any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a throttle,
> + * which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
> */
> if (cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0)
> return;
>
> - se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
> -
> cfs_rq->throttled = 0;
>
> update_rq_clock(rq);
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:37:28PM -0800, Benjamin Segall wrote: ... ... > Reviewed-By: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com> Thank you Ben. Hi Peter, Do you have any other comments about this patch? Or do I need to send an updated version with all the tags collected? Thanks.
On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 07:25:00PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:37:28PM -0800, Benjamin Segall wrote: > ... ... > > Reviewed-By: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com> > > Thank you Ben. > > Hi Peter, > > Do you have any other comments about this patch? Or do I need to send an > updated version with all the tags collected? Thanks. I can tag the whole thread (esc-t) and pipe the whole lot through b4 to easily do so -- in fact I just did :-) This was meant to go in sched/urgent, right?
On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 12:27:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 07:25:00PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:37:28PM -0800, Benjamin Segall wrote: > > ... ... > > > Reviewed-By: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com> > > > > Thank you Ben. > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > Do you have any other comments about this patch? Or do I need to send an > > updated version with all the tags collected? Thanks. > > I can tag the whole thread (esc-t) and pipe the whole lot through b4 to > easily do so -- in fact I just did :-) Cool, thanks for taking care of this. > > This was meant to go in sched/urgent, right? Right, it's a fix for the current kernel.
On 2025/10/30 11:27, Aaron Lu wrote:
> When a cfs_rq is to be throttled, its limbo list should be empty and
> that's why there is a warn in tg_throttle_down() for non empty
> cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list.
>
> When running a test with the following hierarchy:
>
> root
> / \
> A* ...
> / | \ ...
> B
> / \
> C*
>
> where both A and C have quota settings, that warn on non empty limbo list
> is triggered for a cfs_rq of C, let's call it cfs_rq_c(and ignore the cpu
> part of the cfs_rq for the sake of simpler representation).
>
> Debug showed it happened like this:
> Task group C is created and quota is set, so in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(),
> cfs_rq_c is initialized with runtime_enabled set, runtime_remaining
> equals to 0 and *unthrottled*. Before any tasks are enqueued to cfs_rq_c,
> *multiple* throttled tasks can migrate to cfs_rq_c (e.g., due to task
> group changes). When enqueue_task_fair(cfs_rq_c, throttled_task) is
> called and cfs_rq_c is in a throttled hierarchy (e.g., A is throttled),
> these throttled tasks are directly placed into cfs_rq_c's limbo list by
> enqueue_throttled_task().
>
> Later, when A is unthrottled, tg_unthrottle_up(cfs_rq_c) enqueues these
> tasks. The first enqueue triggers check_enqueue_throttle(), and with zero
> runtime_remaining, cfs_rq_c can be throttled in throttle_cfs_rq() if it
> can't get more runtime and enters tg_throttle_down(), where the warning
> is hit due to remaining tasks in the limbo list.
>
> I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
> of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
> this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
> cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
> and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
>
> Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
> unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
> While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
>
> Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
> Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
It worked well in my test cases, and the non-empty throttled_limbo_list
warning no longer appeared.
Tested-by: Hao Jia <jiahao1@lixiang.com>
> ---
> v3: grant cfs_rq 1ns runtime on quota set as suggested by Ben, thanks!
>
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 ++++++---------
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f1ebf67b48e21..f754a60de8484 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
>
> guard(rq_lock_irq)(rq);
> cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
> - cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
> + cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
>
> if (cfs_rq->throttled)
> unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 25970dbbb2795..5b752324270b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6024,20 +6024,17 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> struct sched_entity *se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
>
> /*
> - * It's possible we are called with !runtime_remaining due to things
> - * like user changed quota setting(see tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()) or async
> - * unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other still
> - * running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
> + * It's possible we are called with runtime_remaining < 0 due to things
> + * like async unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other
> + * still running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
> *
> - * Anyway, we can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining
> - * because any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a
> - * throttle, which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
> + * We can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining because
> + * any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a throttle,
> + * which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
> */
> if (cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0)
> return;
>
> - se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
> -
> cfs_rq->throttled = 0;
>
> update_rq_clock(rq);
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 02:51:02PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote: > It worked well in my test cases, and the non-empty throttled_limbo_list > warning no longer appeared. > > Tested-by: Hao Jia <jiahao1@lixiang.com> Thanks Hao, it's great to get your confirm that this also works for your case.
Hello Aaron,
On 10/30/2025 8:57 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
> of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
> this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
> cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
> and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
>
> Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
> unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
> While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
>
> Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
> Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Have been stress testing this on my system and I haven't seen
any splats yet. Feel free to include:
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 11:16:36AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>
> On 10/30/2025 8:57 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
> > of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
> > this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
> > cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
> > and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
> >
> > Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
> > unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
> > While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
> >
> > Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
> > Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
>
> Have been stress testing this on my system and I haven't seen
> any splats yet. Feel free to include:
>
> Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Thank you Prateek!
The following commit has been merged into the sched/urgent branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 956dfda6a70885f18c0f8236a461aa2bc4f556ad
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/956dfda6a70885f18c0f8236a461aa2bc4f556ad
Author: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
AuthorDate: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:27:55 +08:00
Committer: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CommitterDate: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:30:52 +01:00
sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled with zero runtime_remaining
When a cfs_rq is to be throttled, its limbo list should be empty and
that's why there is a warn in tg_throttle_down() for non empty
cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list.
When running a test with the following hierarchy:
root
/ \
A* ...
/ | \ ...
B
/ \
C*
where both A and C have quota settings, that warn on non empty limbo list
is triggered for a cfs_rq of C, let's call it cfs_rq_c(and ignore the cpu
part of the cfs_rq for the sake of simpler representation).
Debug showed it happened like this:
Task group C is created and quota is set, so in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(),
cfs_rq_c is initialized with runtime_enabled set, runtime_remaining
equals to 0 and *unthrottled*. Before any tasks are enqueued to cfs_rq_c,
*multiple* throttled tasks can migrate to cfs_rq_c (e.g., due to task
group changes). When enqueue_task_fair(cfs_rq_c, throttled_task) is
called and cfs_rq_c is in a throttled hierarchy (e.g., A is throttled),
these throttled tasks are directly placed into cfs_rq_c's limbo list by
enqueue_throttled_task().
Later, when A is unthrottled, tg_unthrottle_up(cfs_rq_c) enqueues these
tasks. The first enqueue triggers check_enqueue_throttle(), and with zero
runtime_remaining, cfs_rq_c can be throttled in throttle_cfs_rq() if it
can't get more runtime and enters tg_throttle_down(), where the warning
is hit due to remaining tasks in the limbo list.
I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state in the end, so fix
this by granting 1ns to cfs_rq in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). This ensures
cfs_rq_c has a positive runtime_remaining when initialized as unthrottled
and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with zero runtime_remaining.
Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
Fixes: e1fad12dcb66 ("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Suggested-by: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Tested-by: Hao Jia <jiahao1@lixiang.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251030032755.560-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 ++++++---------
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index f1ebf67..f754a60 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
guard(rq_lock_irq)(rq);
cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
- cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
+ cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
if (cfs_rq->throttled)
unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 25970db..5b75232 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6024,20 +6024,17 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
struct sched_entity *se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
/*
- * It's possible we are called with !runtime_remaining due to things
- * like user changed quota setting(see tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()) or async
- * unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other still
- * running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
+ * It's possible we are called with runtime_remaining < 0 due to things
+ * like async unthrottled us with a positive runtime_remaining but other
+ * still running entities consumed those runtime before we reached here.
*
- * Anyway, we can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining
- * because any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a
- * throttle, which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
+ * We can't unthrottle this cfs_rq without any runtime remaining because
+ * any enqueue in tg_unthrottle_up() will immediately trigger a throttle,
+ * which is not supposed to happen on unthrottle path.
*/
if (cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0)
return;
- se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)];
-
cfs_rq->throttled = 0;
update_rq_clock(rq);
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.