From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
oleg@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking cycles
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:12:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150217121258.GM5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1424170021.5749.22.camel@tkhai>
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:47:01PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> We migrate a task using TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING state of on_rq:
>
> raw_spin_lock(&old_rq->lock);
> deactivate_task(old_rq, p, 0);
> p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING;
> set_task_cpu(p, new_cpu);
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>
> I.e.:
>
> write TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING
> smp_wmb() (in __set_task_cpu)
> write new_cpu
>
> But {,__}task_rq_lock() don't use smp_rmb(), and they may see
> the cpu and TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING in opposite order. In this case
> {,__}task_rq_lock() lock new_rq before the task is actually queued
> on it.
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index fc12a1d..a42fb88 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -319,8 +319,12 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long *flags)
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
> rq = task_rq(p);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> - if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
> - return rq;
> + if (likely(rq == task_rq(p))) {
> + /* Pairs with smp_wmb() in __set_task_cpu() */
That comment really is insufficient; but aside from that:
If we observe the old cpu value we've just acquired the old rq->lock and
therefore we must observe the new cpu value and retry -- we don't care
about the migrate value in this case.
If we observe the new cpu value, we've acquired the new rq->lock and its
ACQUIRE will pair with the WMB to ensure we see the migrate value.
So I think the current code is correct; albeit it could use a comment.
> + smp_rmb();
> + if (likely(!task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
> + return rq;
> + }
---
Subject: sched: Clarify ordering between task_rq_lock() and move_queued_task()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue Feb 17 13:07:38 CET 2015
There was a wee bit of confusion around the exact ordering here;
clarify things.
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reported-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -341,6 +341,22 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct ta
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
rq = task_rq(p);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+ /*
+ * move_queued_task() task_rq_lock()
+ *
+ * ACQUIRE (rq->lock)
+ * [S] ->on_rq = MIGRATING [L] rq = task_rq()
+ * WMB (__set_task_cpu()) ACQUIRE (rq->lock);
+ * [S] ->cpu = new_cpu [L] task_rq()
+ * [L] ->on_rq
+ * RELEASE (rq->lock)
+ *
+ * If we observe the old cpu in task_rq_lock, the acquire of
+ * the old rq->lock will fully serialize against the stores.
+ *
+ * If we observe the new cpu in task_rq_lock, the acquire will
+ * pair with the WMB to ensure we must then also see migrating.
+ */
if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
return rq;
raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-17 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20150217104516.12144.85911.stgit@tkhai>
2015-02-17 10:47 ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-17 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-02-17 12:36 ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-17 12:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-17 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-17 16:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-17 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-17 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-17 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-18 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-17 18:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-17 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-18 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-18 18:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-18 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-18 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-18 16:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-18 19:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-18 15:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-18 19:14 ` Manfred Spraul
2015-02-18 22:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-19 14:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-20 18:28 ` Manfred Spraul
2015-02-20 18:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-20 20:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-21 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-25 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-26 10:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-28 14:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 15:53 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 16:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:44 ` [PATCH] spinlock: clarify doc for raw_spin_unlock_wait() Chris Metcalf
2015-04-29 17:34 ` Manfred Spraul
2015-04-28 17:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] tile: modify arch_spin_unlock_wait() semantics Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 17:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] tile: use READ_ONCE() in arch_spin_is_locked() Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 16:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking cycles Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:58 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 17:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 18:00 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 18:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 18:38 ` Chris Metcalf
2015-04-28 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-21 3:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-23 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-18 17:05 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Clarify ordering between task_rq_lock() and move_queued_task() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150217121258.GM5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome