From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: <paulmck@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev>,
<kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: Re: Mapping from preempted task to running task on same CPU
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:14:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a92f4a71-614f-44e4-b4f1-38e92deffae2@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8b6b372-d16b-4939-aa7a-755b7149e0fb@paulmck-laptop>
Hello Paul,
On 10/15/2026 11:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> One of the commits [1] that I used to chase down a recent bug [2] (and
> thank you again for the fix!) uses the scheduler-internal cpu_curr()
> macro to map from a given CPU to the task currently running on that CPU.
> In the commit, the actual operation is mapping from a stalled (AKA
> preempted but runnable) task to the task running on the corresponding CPU.
> This tasks's ->comm and ->pid are then printed in the RCU CPU stall
> warning console output.
>
> One of the real-time folks voted in favor being able to use this (the
> group is CCed here), which suggests that I push this commit to mainline.
> Which means that I need to do something other than my crude hack of
> creating a rcu_cpu_curr() function in kernel/sched/core.c to get access
> to the scheduler-private cpu_curr() macro.
>
> Please tell me what I should instead be doing (in the check_slow_task()
> function shown below) to get at this information.
[..snip..]
> @@ -327,6 +332,9 @@ static int check_slow_task(struct task_struct *t, void *arg)
> rscrp->on_blkd_list = !list_empty(&t->rcu_node_entry);
> rscrp->rcu_rdr_running = task_curr(t);
> rscrp->rcu_rdr_boosted = 0;
> + rscrp->rcu_rdr_cpu = cpu = task_cpu(t);
> + rscrp->rcu_rdr_cpu_offline = cpu_is_offline(cpu);
> + rscrp->rcu_rdr_cpu_task = th = rcu_cpu_curr(cpu);
If you don't mind taking the overhead of rq_lock, you can use
cpu_curr_snapshot(). It should give you gives a rcu protected
task struct of cpu_curr() and ...
> if (rscrp->on_blkd_list) {
> rnp = READ_ONCE(t->rcu_blocked_node);
> raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs already disabled. */
> @@ -352,6 +360,7 @@ static int rcu_print_task_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
> int ndetected = 0;
> struct rcu_stall_chk_rdr rscr;
> struct task_struct *t;
> + struct task_struct *tc;
> struct task_struct *ts[8];
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> @@ -372,17 +381,24 @@ static int rcu_print_task_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> while (i) {
> t = ts[--i];
> - if (task_call_func(t, check_slow_task, &rscr))
> + if (task_call_func(t, check_slow_task, &rscr)) {
> pr_cont(" P%d", t->pid);
> - else
> - pr_cont(" P%d/%d:%c%c%c%c%c%c",
> + } else {
> + tc = rscr.rcu_rdr_cpu_task;
> + pr_cont(" P%d/%d:%c%c%c%c%c%c CPU %d%s %s (%d)%s",
> t->pid, rscr.nesting,
> ".b"[rscr.rs.b.blocked],
> ".q"[rscr.rs.b.need_qs],
> ".e"[rscr.rs.b.exp_hint],
> ".l"[rscr.on_blkd_list],
> ".R"[rscr.rcu_rdr_running],
> - ".B?"[rscr.rcu_rdr_boosted]);
> + ".B?"[rscr.rcu_rdr_boosted],
> + rscr.rcu_rdr_cpu,
> + rscr.rcu_rdr_cpu_offline ? "!" : "",
> + tc ? tc->comm : "???",
> + tc ? tc->pid : -1,
> + tc ? (is_idle_task(tc) ? " (idle!)" : "") : " (no task)");
> + }
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
... since you are IRQs disabled, it should be fine to use it here.
If you don't want to take the overhead of rq_lock() + barrier,
you can perhaps define a cpu_curr_snapshot_rcu() like:
struct task_struct *cpu_curr_snapshot_rcu(int cpu)
{
return rcu_dereference_all(cpu_curr(cpu));
}
in kernel/sched/core.c and expose it similar to
cpu_curr_snapshot().
I'll let Peter comment if he hates it or not ;-)
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-15 17:41 Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-16 4:44 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-10-16 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-16 16:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=a92f4a71-614f-44e4-b4f1-38e92deffae2@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--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®