mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: peterz@infradead.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] sched/core: Add migrate_disable/enable()
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:24:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200917142438.GH1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200917101624.813835219@linutronix.de>

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> +static inline void update_nr_migratory(struct task_struct *p, long delta)
> +{
> +	if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1 && p->sched_class->update_migratory)
> +		p->sched_class->update_migratory(p, delta);
> +}

Right, so as you know, I totally hate this thing :-) It adds a second
(and radically different) version of changing affinity. I'm working on a
version that uses the normal *set_cpus_allowed*() interface.

> +/*
> + * The migrate_disable/enable() fastpath updates only the tasks migrate
> + * disable count which is sufficient as long as the task stays on the CPU.
> + *
> + * When a migrate disabled task is scheduled out it can become subject to
> + * load balancing. To prevent this, update task::cpus_ptr to point to the
> + * current CPUs cpumask and set task::nr_cpus_allowed to 1.
> + *
> + * If task::cpus_ptr does not point to task::cpus_mask then the update has
> + * been done already. This check is also used in in migrate_enable() as an
> + * indicator to restore task::cpus_ptr to point to task::cpus_mask
> + */
> +static inline void sched_migration_ctrl(struct task_struct *prev, int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (!prev->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt ||
> +	    prev->cpus_ptr != &prev->cpus_mask)
> +		return;
> +
> +	prev->cpus_ptr = cpumask_of(cpu);
> +	update_nr_migratory(prev, -1);
> +	prev->nr_cpus_allowed = 1;
> +}

So this thing is called from schedule(), with only rq->lock held, and
that violates the locking rules for changing the affinity.

I have a comment that explains how it's broken and why it's sort-of
working.

> +void migrate_disable(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	if (!current->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt) {
> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
> +		current->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt++;
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
> +	} else {
> +		current->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt++;
> +	}
> +}

That pi_lock seems unfortunate, and it isn't obvious what the point of
it is.

> +void migrate_enable(void)
> +{
> +	struct task_migrate_data *pending;
> +	struct task_struct *p = current;
> +	struct rq_flags rf;
> +	struct rq *rq;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(p->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt <= 0))
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (p->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt > 1) {
> +		p->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt--;
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, rf.flags);
> +	p->migration_ctrl.disable_cnt = 0;
> +	pending = p->migration_ctrl.pending;
> +	p->migration_ctrl.pending = NULL;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the task was never scheduled out while in the migrate
> +	 * disabled region and there is no migration request pending,
> +	 * return.
> +	 */
> +	if (!pending && p->cpus_ptr == &p->cpus_mask) {
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, rf.flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> +	/* Was it scheduled out while in a migrate disabled region? */
> +	if (p->cpus_ptr != &p->cpus_mask) {
> +		/* Restore the tasks CPU mask and update the weight */
> +		p->cpus_ptr = &p->cpus_mask;
> +		p->nr_cpus_allowed = cpumask_weight(&p->cpus_mask);
> +		update_nr_migratory(p, 1);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* If no migration request is pending, no further action required. */
> +	if (!pending) {
> +		task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Migrate self to the requested target */
> +	pending->res = set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(p, pending->mask,
> +						   pending->check, rq, &rf);
> +	complete(pending->done);
> +}

So, what I'm missing with all this are the design contraints for this
trainwreck. Because the 'sane' solution was having migrate_disable()
imply cpus_read_lock(). But that didn't fly because we can't have
migrate_disable() / migrate_enable() schedule for raisins.

And if I'm not mistaken, the above migrate_enable() *does* require being
able to schedule, and our favourite piece of futex:

	raw_spin_lock_irq(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
	spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);

is broken. Consider that spin_unlock() doing migrate_enable() with a
pending sched_setaffinity().

Let me ponder this more..

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-17 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-17  9:42 [patch 00/10] sched: Migrate disable support for RT Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 01/10] sched: Fix balance_callback() Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 02/10] sched/hotplug: Ensure only per-cpu kthreads run during hotplug Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 03/10] sched/core: Wait for tasks being pushed away on hotplug Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 04/10] sched/hotplug: Consolidate task migration on CPU unplug Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 05/10] sched/core: Split __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 06/10] sched: Add task components for migration control Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 07/10] sched/core: Add mechanism to wait for affinity setting to complete Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 08/10] sched: Add update_migratory() callback to scheduler classes Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 09/10] sched/core: Add migrate_disable/enable() Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-17 14:24   ` peterz [this message]
2020-09-17 14:38     ` Sebastian Siewior
2020-09-17 14:49       ` peterz
2020-09-17 15:13         ` Sebastian Siewior
2020-09-17 15:54           ` peterz
2020-09-17 16:30             ` Sebastian Siewior
2020-09-18  8:22               ` peterz
2020-09-18  8:48                 ` Sebastian Siewior
2020-09-18  7:00     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-18  8:28       ` peterz
2020-09-17  9:42 ` [patch 10/10] sched/core: Make migrate disable and CPU hotplug cooperative Thomas Gleixner

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=20200917142438.GH1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=swood@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®