mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: workqueue: WARN at at kernel/workqueue.c:2176
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 10:50:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5393CF90.9070807@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140606133629.GP13930@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 06/06/2014 09:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:54:35PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 268a45e..d05a5a1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -1474,20 +1474,24 @@ static int ttwu_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
>>  }
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> -static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
>> +static void sched_ttwu_pending_locked(struct rq *rq)
>>  {
>> -	struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>>  	struct llist_node *llist = llist_del_all(&rq->wake_list);
>>  	struct task_struct *p;
>>  
>> -	raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> -
>>  	while (llist) {
>>  		p = llist_entry(llist, struct task_struct, wake_entry);
>>  		llist = llist_next(llist);
>>  		ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, 0);
>>  	}
>> +}
>>  
>> +static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +	sched_ttwu_pending_locked(rq);
>>  	raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>>  }
> 
> OK, so this won't apply to a recent kernel.

Thank you for review.

The code here was already changed in the recent kernel?
or I touched too much to apply it?

> 
>> @@ -4530,6 +4534,11 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
>>  		goto out;
>>  
>>  	dest_cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask, new_mask);
>> +
>> +	/* Ensure it is on rq for migration if it is waking */
>> +	if (p->state == TASK_WAKING)
>> +		sched_ttwu_pending_locked(rq);
> 
> So I would really rather like to avoid this if possible, its doing full
> remote queueing, exactly what we tried to avoid.

set_cpus_allowed_ptr() is slow path, the bad effect introduced by this
change is limited.

> 
>> +
>>  	if (p->on_rq) {
>>  		struct migration_arg arg = { p, dest_cpu };
>>  		/* Need help from migration thread: drop lock and wait. */
>> @@ -4576,6 +4585,10 @@ static int __migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, int src_cpu, int dest_cpu)
>>  	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(dest_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p)))
>>  		goto fail;
>>  
>> +	/* Ensure it is on rq for migration if it is waking */
>> +	if (p->state == TASK_WAKING)
>> +		sched_ttwu_pending_locked(rq_src);
>> +
>>  	/*
>>  	 * If we're not on a rq, the next wake-up will ensure we're
>>  	 * placed properly.
> 
> Oh man, another variant.. why did you change it again? And without
> explanation for why you changed it.
> 
> I don't see a reason to call sched_ttwu_pending() with rq->lock held,
> seeing as how we append to that list without it held.

sched_ttwu_pending() requires rq->lock to do actual work.

I swapped the order of "llist_del_all(&rq->wake_list)" and "raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);"
that it makes the lock section of rq->lock is slightly extend.

> 
> I'm still thinking the previous version is good, can you explain why you
> changed it?

There was a window in the previous version.

sched_ttwu_pending();
	<----------------window here, the task can be in WAKING state again.
__migrate_task();


When I thought deeply, it was still correct in current code for all migration_cpu_stop()'s
callers. But we need a big chunk of comments to explain it. And I felt nervous
with that window, it would be a bug if something else changed without regarding
this window. I don't want to leave a fragile code.

The new version patch is much straight and it is self comment.

Migration: if the task is waken-up, migrate it, otherwise it is next wakeup's responsibility.
Original code simply considered p->on_rq <==> waken-up.
New patch just fixes up p->on_rq before considering it.


How about this (slight changed without touching original sched_ttwu_pending())

---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 268a45e..cd224ea 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1474,6 +1474,18 @@ static int ttwu_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+static void sched_ttwu_pending_locked(struct rq *rq)
+{
+	struct llist_node *llist = llist_del_all(&rq->wake_list);
+	struct task_struct *p;
+
+	while (llist) {
+		p = llist_entry(llist, struct task_struct, wake_entry);
+		llist = llist_next(llist);
+		ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, 0);
+	}
+}
+
 static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
 {
 	struct rq *rq = this_rq();
@@ -4530,7 +4542,7 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
 		goto out;
 
 	dest_cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask, new_mask);
-	if (p->on_rq) {
+	if (p->on_rq || p->state == TASK_WAKING) {
 		struct migration_arg arg = { p, dest_cpu };
 		/* Need help from migration thread: drop lock and wait. */
 		task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
@@ -4576,6 +4588,10 @@ static int __migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, int src_cpu, int dest_cpu)
 	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(dest_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p)))
 		goto fail;
 
+	/* Ensure it is on rq for migration if it is waking */
+	if (p->state == TASK_WAKING)
+		sched_ttwu_pending_locked(rq_src);
+
 	/*
 	 * If we're not on a rq, the next wake-up will ensure we're
 	 * placed properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-08  2:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-12 18:58 Sasha Levin
2014-05-12 20:01 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-13  2:19   ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-13  2:17     ` Sasha Levin
2014-05-14 16:52       ` Jason J. Herne
2014-05-16  3:50         ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-16  9:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16  9:56             ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-16 10:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 10:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 10:16               ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 10:39                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 11:57           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 12:08             ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-16 12:14               ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-16 12:16                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-16 16:18             ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-16 16:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-27 14:18                 ` Jason J. Herne
2014-05-27 14:26                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-29 16:23                     ` Jason J. Herne
2014-06-03 11:24                       ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-03 12:45                         ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-03 14:28                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-04  1:47                             ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-03 14:16                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-04  2:27                           ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-04  6:49                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-04  8:25                               ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-04  9:39                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-05 10:54                                   ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-05 15:22                                     ` Jason J. Herne
2014-06-06 12:39                                     ` Jason J. Herne
2014-06-06 13:36                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-08  2:50                                       ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2014-09-01  3:04                                       ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-09-03 15:15                                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-04  2:22                                           ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-09-04  6:39                                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-09 14:01                                     ` Jason J. Herne
2014-06-10  1:21                                       ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-16  1:30                                         ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-09-09 14:52                                 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Migrate waking tasks tip-bot for Lai Jiangshan
2014-09-10  7:38                                   ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-09-10  7:53                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-04  2:28                         ` workqueue: WARN at at kernel/workqueue.c:2176 Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-04  6:48                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-19 13:07           ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Fix hotplug vs set_cpus_allowed_ptr() tip-bot for Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-22 12:26           ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Fix hotplug vs. set_cpus_allowed_ptr() tip-bot for Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-22 22:02             ` Srivatsa S. Bhat

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=5393CF90.9070807@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@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

Powered by JetHome