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
next prev parent 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®