mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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);

  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