mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/core: Provide sched_rtmutex() and expose sched work helpers
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 15:20:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230503132051.GB1676736@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230427111937.2745231-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 01:19:34PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> 
> schedule() invokes sched_submit_work() before scheduling and
> sched_update_worker() afterwards to ensure that queued block requests are
> flushed and the (IO)worker machineries can instantiate new workers if
> required. This avoids deadlocks and starvation.
> 
> With rt_mutexes this can lead to subtle problem:
> 
>   When rtmutex blocks current::pi_blocked_on points to the rtmutex it
>   blocks on. When one of the functions in sched_submit/resume_work()
>   contends on a rtmutex based lock then that would corrupt
>   current::pi_blocked_on.
> 
> Make it possible to let rtmutex issue the calls outside of the slowpath,
> i.e. when it is guaranteed that current::pi_blocked_on is NULL, by:
> 
>   - Exposing sched_submit_work() and moving the task_running() condition
>     into schedule()
> 
>   - Renamimg sched_update_worker() to sched_resume_work() and exposing it
>     too.
> 
>   - Providing sched_rtmutex() which just does the inner loop of scheduling
>     until need_resched() is not longer set. Split out the loop so this does
>     not create yet another copy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Urgh, so I really don't like this.

The end result is something like:

	rt_mutex_lock()
	  sched_submit_work();
	    // a nested rt_mutex_lock() here will not clobber
	    // ->pi_blocked_on because it's not set yet.

	  task_blocks_on_rt_mutex();
	    tsk->pi_blocked_on = waiter;
	    rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter); <-- the real problem

	  rt_mutex_slowlock_block();
	    schedule_rtmutex();

	  sched_resume_work();

And all of this it not just because tsk->pi_blocked_on, but mostly
because of task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() enqueueing the waiter. The whole
enqueue thing is what makes the 'simple' solution of saving/restoring
tsk->pi_blocked_on not work.

Basically the pi_blocked_on curruption is a side effect, not the
fundamental issue. One task having two waiters registered is the bigger
issue.

Now, sched_submit_work() could also use (regular) mutex -- after all
it's a fully preemptible context. And then we're subject to the 'same'
problem but with tsk->blocked_on (DEBUG_MUTEXES=y).

This means that strictly speaking we should litter mutex with the same
thing :/

This all feels fragile to me. Too many things spread out in too many
places. An alternative is something like:

void __sched schedule_pi(void)
{
	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
	void *waiter = tsk->pi_blocked_on;

	sched_submit_work(tsk);
	do {
		preempt_disable();
		if (rt_mutex_blocks(tsk, waiter))
			schedule();
		sched_preempt_enable_no_resched();
	} while (need_resched());
	sched_update_worker(tsk);
}

And then rt_mutex_blocks() will do the enqueue/boost/optimistic_spin
thing. However, this is going to be a massive reorg of the rt_mutex code
and I'm not entirely sure the end result will actually be better... it
might just make a mess elsewhere :/

> +void sched_submit_work(void)
>  {
> -	unsigned int task_flags;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +	unsigned int task_flags = tsk->flags;
>  
> -	if (task_is_running(tsk))
> -		return;
> -
> -	task_flags = tsk->flags;
>  	/*
>  	 * If a worker goes to sleep, notify and ask workqueue whether it
>  	 * wants to wake up a task to maintain concurrency.
> @@ -6723,8 +6720,10 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  	blk_flush_plug(tsk->plug, true);
>  }

> +asmlinkage __visible void __sched schedule(void)
> +{
> +	if (!task_is_running(current))
> +		sched_submit_work();
> +	schedule_loop(SM_NONE);
> +	sched_resume_work();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);

pulling out task_is_running() like this is going to get into conflict
with TJs patches here:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230418205159.724789-1-tj@kernel.org

That makes sched_submit_work() do things even if task_is_running().

  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-03 13:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-27 11:19 [PATCH v2 0/4] locking/rtmutex: Avoid overwriting pi_blocked_on while invoking blk_flush_plug() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-04-27 11:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/core: Provide sched_rtmutex() and expose sched work helpers Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-05-03 13:20   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-05-09 22:14     ` Crystal Wood
2023-05-11 13:53       ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-10 15:04     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-05-11 13:43       ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-25 15:25         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-06-16 12:37           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-04-27 11:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] locking/rtmutex: Submit/resume work explicitly before/after blocking Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-04-27 11:19 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] locking/rtmutex: Avoid pointless blk_flush_plug() invocations Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-04-27 11:19 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] locking/rtmutex: Add a lockdep assert to catch potential nested blocking Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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=20230503132051.GB1676736@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=swood@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.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®