mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@arm.com>,
	Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Daniel Lezcano" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
	kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>, hupu <hupu.gm@gmail.com>,
	<kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v21 2/6] sched/locking: Add blocked_on_state to provide necessary tri-state for proxy return-migration
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 13:35:57 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <337322ea-6efe-4814-a813-e55d4c80fda7@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250904002201.971268-3-jstultz@google.com>

Hello John,

On 9/4/2025 5:51 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>  static inline void __clear_task_blocked_on(struct task_struct *p, struct mutex *m)
>  {
> +	/* The task should only be clearing itself */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(p != current);
>  	/* Currently we serialize blocked_on under the task::blocked_lock */
>  	lockdep_assert_held_once(&p->blocked_lock);
> -	/*
> -	 * There may be cases where we re-clear already cleared
> -	 * blocked_on relationships, but make sure we are not
> -	 * clearing the relationship with a different lock.
> -	 */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(m && p->blocked_on && p->blocked_on != m);
> +	/* Make sure we are clearing the relationship with the right lock */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(m && p->blocked_on != m);
>  	p->blocked_on = NULL;
> +	p->blocked_on_state = BO_RUNNABLE;
>  }
>  

Maybe it is just me, but I got confused a couple of time only to
realize __clear_task_blocked_on() clears the "blocked_on" and sets
"blocked_on_state" to BO_RUNNABLE.

Can we decouple the two and only set "p->blocked_on" in
*_task_blocked_on_* and "p->blocked_on_state" in
*{set,clear,force}_blocked_on* functions so it becomes easier to
follow in the mutex path as:

    __set_task_blocked_on(p, mutex); // blocked on mutex
    __force_blocked_on_blocked(p); // blocked from running on CPU

   ...

    __clear_task_blocked_on(p, mutex); // p is no longer blocked on a mutex
    __set_blocked_on_runnable(p); // p is now runnable

>  static inline void clear_task_blocked_on(struct task_struct *p, struct mutex *m)

Of the three {set,clear}_task_blcoked_on() usage:

    $ grep -r "\(set\|clear\)_task_blocked_on" include/
    kernel/locking/mutex.c: __set_task_blocked_on(current, lock);
    kernel/locking/mutex.c: __clear_task_blocked_on(current, lock);
    kernel/locking/mutex.c: clear_task_blocked_on(current, lock);

two can be converted directly and perhaps clear_task_blocked_on() can be
renamed as clear_task_blocked_on_set_runnable()?

This is just me rambling on so feel free to ignore. I probably have to
train my mind enough to see __clear_task_blocked_on() not only clears
"blocked_on" but also sets task to runnable :)

[..snip..]

> @@ -6749,6 +6776,15 @@ find_proxy_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(owner && !owner->on_rq);
>  	return owner;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * NOTE: This logic is down here, because we need to call
> +	 * the functions with the mutex wait_lock and task
> +	 * blocked_lock released, so we have to get out of the
> +	 * guard() scope.
> +	 */

I didn't know that was possible! Neat. Since cleanup.h has a note
reading:

    ... the expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is
    never mixed in the same function.

are there any concerns w.r.t. compiler versions etc. or am I just being
paranoid?

> +deactivate_donor:
> +	return proxy_deactivate(rq, donor);
>  }
>  #else /* SCHED_PROXY_EXEC */
>  static struct task_struct *
-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-15  8:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-04  0:21 [RESEND][PATCH v21 0/6] Donor Migration for Proxy Execution (v21) John Stultz
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 1/6] locking: Add task::blocked_lock to serialize blocked_on state John Stultz
2025-09-12  5:50   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-18 19:58     ` John Stultz
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 2/6] sched/locking: Add blocked_on_state to provide necessary tri-state for proxy return-migration John Stultz
2025-09-15  8:05   ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2025-09-18 22:57     ` John Stultz
2025-09-19  3:27       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-23 23:34         ` John Stultz
2025-09-15  9:03   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-18 23:07     ` John Stultz
2025-09-19  3:38       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 3/6] sched: Add logic to zap balance callbacks if we pick again John Stultz
2025-09-15  8:31   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-19 18:34     ` John Stultz
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 4/6] sched: Handle blocked-waiter migration (and return migration) John Stultz
2025-09-15 10:06   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-20  2:38     ` John Stultz
2025-09-22  4:14       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 5/6] sched: Add blocked_donor link to task for smarter mutex handoffs John Stultz
2025-09-04  0:21 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 6/6] sched: Migrate whole chain in proxy_migrate_task() John Stultz
2025-09-11 13:59 ` [RESEND][PATCH v21 0/6] Donor Migration for Proxy Execution (v21) Juri Lelli
2025-09-11 23:21   ` John Stultz
2025-09-12  8:14     ` Juri Lelli
2025-09-16  3:19 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-16  4:57   ` John Stultz

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=337322ea-6efe-4814-a813-e55d4c80fda7@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=Metin.Kaya@arm.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=hupu.gm@gmail.com \
    --cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=kuyo.chang@mediatek.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=suleiman@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
    --cc=zezeozue@google.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®