mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Minor optimize ttwu_runnable()
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 19:17:58 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8ad4a5d5-e24b-19ba-290d-0ec964d92fd9@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y2oqo0u2/TPN3ozU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 2022/11/8 18:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:11:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 03:54:38PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> So that's the part for the p->sched_class->task_woken() callback, which
>>> only affects RT and DL (and only does something when !p->on_cpu). I *think*
>>> it's fine to remove it from ttwu_runnable() as any push/pull should have
>>> happened when other tasks were enqueued on the same CPU - with that said,
>>> it wouldn't hurt to double check this :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> As for the check_preempt_curr(), since per the above p can be preempted,
>>> you could have scenarios right now with CFS tasks where
>>> ttwu_runnable()->check_preempt_curr() causes NEED_RESCHED to be set.
>>>
>>> e.g. p0 does
>>>
>>>   set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>>>
>>> but then gets interrupted by the tick, a p1 gets selected to run instead
>>> because of check_preempt_tick(), and then runs long enough to have
>>> check_preempt_curr() decide to let p0 preempt p1.
>>>
>>> That does require specific timing (lower tick frequency should make this
>>> more likely) and probably task niceness distribution too, but isn't
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> Maybe try reading p->on_cpu, and only do the quick task state update if
>>> it's still the current task, otherwise do the preemption checks?
>>
>> I'm confused...
> 
> I am and Valentin has a point. It could indeed be preempted and in that
> case check_preempt_curr() could indeed make it get back on.
> 
> In that case his suggestion might make sense; something along the lines
> of so I suppose...
> 
> (And I think we can still do the reorg I proposed elsewhere, but I've not
> yet tried.)

Ok, thanks for these suggestions.

I will try to do this, do some tests and send v2.

Thanks.

> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index cb2aa2b54c7a..6944d9473295 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3698,9 +3698,16 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
>  
>  	rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
>  	if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
> -		/* check_preempt_curr() may use rq clock */
> -		update_rq_clock(rq);
> -		ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, wake_flags, &rf);
> +		if (!p->on_cpu) {
> +			/*
> +			 * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
> +			 * it should preempt whatever is current there now.
> +			 */
> +			update_rq_clock(rq);
> +			check_preempt_curr(rq, p, wake_flags);
> +		}
> +		WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
> +		trace_sched_wakeup(p);
>  		ret = 1;
>  	}
>  	__task_rq_unlock(rq, &rf);

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-08 11:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-02 10:23 Chengming Zhou
2022-11-04 18:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-05  1:34   ` Chengming Zhou
2022-11-07 12:56     ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-07 13:19       ` Chengming Zhou
2022-11-07 15:54         ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-08  7:38           ` Chengming Zhou
2022-11-08  9:11           ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-11-08 10:08             ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-11-08 11:17               ` Chengming Zhou [this message]
2022-11-08  9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra

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=8ad4a5d5-e24b-19ba-290d-0ec964d92fd9@bytedance.com \
    --to=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
    --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@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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®