From: Kayra Cizmeci <kayracizmeci@gmail.com>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>,
Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>, hupu <hupu.gm@gmail.com>,
Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>,
"zhidao su (Xiaomi)" <soolaugust@gmail.com>,
Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>,
"Shubhang Kaushik (Ampere)" <sh@gentwo.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v33 7/7] sched/proxy: Add deactivated (sleeping) owner handling to find_proxy_task()
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:59:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <at-e0pcGZraOSjYi@scheduler.schedules> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261023220431.1106611-8-jstultz@google.com>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 10:04:18PM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
While writing this review, I lost the review that I wrote 2 times
before sending it. And broken some of my keyboards keycaps.
Now it's broken out of 'control'.
But if you can see this, it means that I finally been able
to send it.
:-(.
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 7 +
> include/linux/sched/task.h | 1 +
> init/init_task.c | 6 +
> kernel/fork.c | 6 +
> kernel/sched/core.c | 333 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 5 files changed, 332 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 12a7e094a3e6b..3fae2f1438583 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1266,6 +1266,13 @@ struct task_struct {
>
> struct mutex *blocked_on; /* lock we're blocked on */
> raw_spinlock_t blocked_lock;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> + struct list_head blocked_head; /* tasks blocked on this task */
> + struct list_head blocked_node; /* our entry on someone elses blocked_head */
> + /* Node for list of tasks to process blocked_head list for blocked entitiy activations */
> + struct list_head blocked_activation_node;
> + struct task_struct *sleeping_owner; /* task our blocked_node is enqueued on */
> +#endif
>
> /*
> * The task that is boosting this task; a back link for the current
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> index 90ed5bc3c7afe..26c19ee980456 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> }
>
> DEFINE_FREE(put_task, struct task_struct *, if (_T) put_task_struct(_T))
> +DEFINE_GUARD(get_task, struct task_struct *, get_task_struct(_T), put_task_struct(_T))
>
> static inline void put_task_struct_many(struct task_struct *t, int nr)
> {
> diff --git a/init/init_task.c b/init/init_task.c
> index ce7c2b07d855d..aed3f7d8a5cc3 100644
> --- a/init/init_task.c
> +++ b/init/init_task.c
> @@ -213,6 +213,12 @@ struct task_struct init_task __aligned(L1_CACHE_BYTES) = {
> &init_task.alloc_lock),
> #endif
> .blocked_donor = NULL,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> + .blocked_head = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_task.blocked_head),
> + .blocked_node = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_task.blocked_node),
> + .blocked_activation_node = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_task.blocked_activation_node),
> + .sleeping_owner = NULL,
> +#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
> .pi_waiters = RB_ROOT_CACHED,
> .pi_top_task = NULL,
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 394906afafd30..f87f806c2958b 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2277,6 +2277,12 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>
> p->blocked_on = NULL; /* not blocked yet */
> p->blocked_donor = NULL; /* nobody is boosting p yet */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->blocked_head);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->blocked_node);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->blocked_activation_node);
> + p->sleeping_owner = NULL;
> +#endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_BCACHE
> p->sequential_io = 0;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 0cb41a884ea70..be3ce8b554fed 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ inline bool dequeue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> return p->sched_class->dequeue_task(rq, p, flags);
> }
>
> -void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> +static inline void __activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> {
> if (task_on_rq_migrating(p))
> flags |= ENQUEUE_MIGRATED;
> @@ -2240,6 +2240,76 @@ void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(p->on_rq);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> +static inline
> +void __proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(struct task_struct *owner, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_held(&owner->blocked_lock);
> +
> + BUG_ON(p->sleeping_owner != owner);
> +
> + list_del_init(&p->blocked_node);
> + WRITE_ONCE(p->sleeping_owner, NULL);
> + put_task_struct(owner); // matches get in proxy_enqueue_on_owner
> +}
> +
> +static inline void proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *owner;
> +
> +retry:
> + owner = data_race(READ_ONCE(p->sleeping_owner));
> + if (!owner)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * __proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner() does a
> + * put on owner to match the get done in
> + * proxy_enqueue_on_owner(). If that put is the
> + * last one and it frees owner, we'd be freeing
> + * a lock we held. So get/put owner around its
> + * usage her to ensure that doesn't happen.
nit. 'her'
> + */
> + scoped_guard(get_task, owner) {
> + guard(raw_spinlock)(&owner->blocked_lock);
> +
> + if (owner != READ_ONCE(p->sleeping_owner))
> + goto retry;
> + __proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(owner, p);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int en_flags)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +
> + if (!sched_proxy_exec()) {
> + __activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(p);
> + /*
> + * By calling __activate_task() with blocked_lock held, we
> + * order against the find_proxy_task() blocked_task case
> + * such that no more blocked tasks will be enqueued on p
> + * once we release p->blocked_lock.
> + */
> + guard(raw_spinlock)(&p->blocked_lock);
> + WARN_ON(task_cpu(p) != cpu_of(rq));
> + __activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int en_flags)
> +{
> + __activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> void deactivate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
> @@ -3815,6 +3885,184 @@ static inline void proxy_reset_donor(struct rq *rq)
> resched_curr(rq);
> }
>
> +static inline void proxy_set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> +{
> + unsigned int wake_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> + * Since we are enqueuing a blocked task on a cpu it may
> + * not be able to run on, preserve wake_cpu when we
> + * __set_task_cpu so we can return the task to where it
> + * was previously runnable.
> + */
> + wake_cpu = p->wake_cpu;
> + __set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> + p->wake_cpu = wake_cpu;
> +}
> +
> +static void do_activate_blocked_waiter(struct rq *target_rq, struct task_struct *p, int en_flags)
> +{
> + struct rq_flags rf;
> + int target_cpu = cpu_of(target_rq);
> +
> + scoped_guard (raw_spinlock_irqsave, &p->pi_lock) {
> + /* If task is no longer blocked, don't activate */
> + if (!p->is_blocked)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Avoid racing with ttwu */
> + if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) == TASK_WAKING)
> + return;
> +
> + if (READ_ONCE(p->on_rq)) {
> + /*
> + * We raced with a non mutex handoff activation of p.
> + * That activation will also take care of activating
> + * all of the tasks after p in the blocked_head list,
> + * so we're done here.
> + */
> + return;
I think we can come here with delayed tasks too. No?
Like this: proxy_enqueue_on_owner() adds the task to
owner's list, then calls block_task(), block_task() calls
dequeue_block_task() and that calls dequeue_task_fair() (In fair case)
and dequeue_task_fair() calls __dequeue_task()
And then we set sched_delayed to 1 if the task is not eligible.
And then returns false. Because it returns false this whole
chain returns false. And __block_task() is not called. So the
task is on_rq and the owner list.
When owner wakes up, try_to_wake_up() calls activate_blocked_waiters()
and do_activate_blocked_waiter() just skips the delayed task as above.
Or am I missing something?
> + }
> + if (task_on_cpu(task_rq(p), p)) {
> + /*
> + * Its possible this activation is very late, and
> + * we already were woken up and are running on a
> + * different cpu. If that task blocked, it could be
> + * dequeued (so on_rq == 0), but still on_cpu.
> + * Bail in this case, as we definitely don't want to
> + * activate a task when its on_cpu elsewhere.
> + */
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + scoped_guard (raw_spinlock, &p->blocked_lock) {
> + /*
> + * Again, if activation is delayed, it's possible the
> + * task has been woken and is no longer blocked_on,
> + * but went back to sleep, so double check blocked_on
> + * before activating onto the owner's rq
> + */
> + if (!task_is_blocked(p))
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Have to make sure we handle nr_iowait adjustment before
> + * we call proxy_set_task_cpu() to ensure we are adjusting
> + * the same runqueue we left (where block_task()
> + * incremented nr_iowait).
> + */
> + if (p->in_iowait) {
> + delayacct_blkio_end(p);
> + atomic_dec(&task_rq(p)->nr_iowait);
> + }
> +
> + if (task_cpu(p) != target_cpu) {
> + en_flags |= ENQUEUE_MIGRATED;
> + psi_ttwu_dequeue(p);
> + proxy_set_task_cpu(p, target_cpu);
> + }
> + rq_lock_irqsave(target_rq, &rf);
> + /*
> + * proxy_enqueue_on_owner() called block_task() which
> + * increments nr_uninterruptible, so we need to reverse
> + * that when we activate the blocked waiter
> + */
> + if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
> + target_rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> + update_rq_clock(target_rq);
> + activate_task(target_rq, p, en_flags);
> + resched_curr(target_rq);
> + rq_unlock_irqrestore(target_rq, &rf);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void activate_blocked_waiters(struct rq *target_rq,
> + struct task_struct *owner,
> + int wake_flags)
> +{
> + struct list_head bal_head;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
> +
> + if (!sched_proxy_exec())
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * A whole bunch of waiting donor tasks back this blocked
> + * lock owner task, wake them all up to give this task its
> + * 'fair' share.
> + *
> + * This is a little unique here and the locking is messy.
> + * At this point we only hold the blocked_lock, so the
> + * owner task may be able to run and do all sorts of
> + * things while we are processing the blocked_head list,
> + * including going back to sleep, which can cause tasks
> + * to be added to the owners->blocked_head while we are
> + * processing it!
> + * Thus, we pull the entire list off the owner->blocked_head
> + * here so that we will only process a finite amount of
> + * tasks. Tasks added after this will be processed by the
> + * future wake events.
> + * Even though we have pulled the list off the blocked_head
> + * the removed list is *still* "owned" and serialized by
> + * the owner->blocked_lock! As we have to serialize against
> + * mid-chain wakeups, who may try to remove themselves from
> + * the list.
> + */
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + if (!list_empty(&owner->blocked_activation_node)) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (list_empty(&owner->blocked_head)) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + get_task_struct(owner);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bal_head);
> + list_add_tail(&owner->blocked_activation_node, &bal_head);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> +
> + while (!list_empty(&bal_head)) {
> + struct list_head tmp_head;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp_head);
> + owner = list_first_entry(&bal_head, struct task_struct, blocked_activation_node);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + list_replace_init(&owner->blocked_head, &tmp_head);
> + list_del_init(&owner->blocked_activation_node);
> + while (!list_empty(&tmp_head)) {
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> + p = list_first_entry(&tmp_head,
> + struct task_struct,
> + blocked_node);
> + WARN_ON(p == owner);
> + __proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(owner, p);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> +
> + do_activate_blocked_waiter(target_rq, p, en_flags);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->blocked_lock, flags);
> + if (list_empty(&p->blocked_activation_node)) {
> + get_task_struct(p);
> + list_add_tail(&p->blocked_activation_node, &bal_head);
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->blocked_lock, flags);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->blocked_lock, flags);
> + put_task_struct(owner); // put matches get prior to adding to local bal_head
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *proxy_resched_idle(struct rq *rq);
> +
> /*
> * Checks to see if task p has been proxy-migrated to another rq
> * and needs to be returned. If so, we deactivate the task here
> @@ -3872,6 +4120,10 @@ static inline bool proxy_needs_return(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> return false;
> }
> +
> +static inline void activate_blocked_waiters(struct rq *target_rq,
> + struct task_struct *owner,
> + int wake_flags) {}
> #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC */
>
> static void
> @@ -3945,8 +4197,10 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
>
> update_rq_clock(rq);
> if (p->is_blocked) {
> - if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> + if (p->se.sched_delayed) {
> + proxy_remove_from_sleeping_owner(p);
> enqueue_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK | ENQUEUE_DELAYED);
> + }
> if (proxy_needs_return(rq, p))
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -3975,13 +4229,15 @@ void sched_ttwu_pending(void *arg)
> update_rq_clock(rq);
>
> llist_for_each_entry_safe(p, t, llist, wake_entry.llist) {
> + int wake_flags;
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(p->on_cpu))
> smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL);
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(task_cpu(p) != cpu_of(rq)))
> set_task_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq));
>
> - ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, p->sched_remote_wakeup ? WF_MIGRATED : 0, &rf);
> + wake_flags = p->sched_remote_wakeup ? WF_MIGRATED : 0;
> + ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, wake_flags, &rf);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -4488,6 +4744,7 @@ int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> ttwu_queue(p, cpu, wake_flags);
> }
> out:
> + activate_blocked_waiters(cpu_rq(task_cpu(p)), p, wake_flags);
> if (success)
> ttwu_stat(p, task_cpu(p), wake_flags);
Wouldn't this be unnecessary in some cases? Like:
TA sends a signal to its owner with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
while it's owner has TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
scoped_guard (raw_spinlock_irqsave, &p->pi_lock) {
smp_mb__after_spinlock();
if (!ttwu_state_match(p, state, &success))
break;
In this case, ttwu_state_match() returns false. So we break. And even if
we didn't waked up we get all of our tasks to our rq.
Wouldn't it would be better to only call this when we only
wake up? Or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Kayra
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-26 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-23 22:04 [PATCH v33 0/7] Sleeping Owner Handling for Proxy Execution (v33) John Stultz
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 1/7] sched/psi: Preserve sleep-persistent PSI flags on off-CPU sleeping dequeues John Stultz
2026-10-24 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-26 5:00 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 4:32 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 5:16 ` Zhan Xusheng
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 2/7] sched/core: Use the scheduling context for remote ticks John Stultz
2026-10-24 13:44 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 3/7] sched/core: Activate blocked donor when no owner is found John Stultz
2026-10-24 8:33 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-26 3:02 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 4/7] sched/proxy: Set TASK_RUNNING when shortcuting return migration John Stultz
2026-10-24 8:36 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-26 3:09 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 5/7] sched/proxy: Break cyclic proxy chains by deactivating blocked tasks John Stultz
2026-10-24 21:19 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 6/7] sched/proxy: Detect cycles in proxy walks earlier John Stultz
2026-10-24 15:34 ` Kayra Cizmeci
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 7/7] sched/proxy: Add deactivated (sleeping) owner handling to find_proxy_task() John Stultz
2026-10-24 9:07 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-26 4:26 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-27 16:22 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-28 3:36 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-28 10:01 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-28 10:11 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-28 10:36 ` Juri Lelli
2026-10-29 3:27 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 7:40 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-26 19:59 ` Kayra Cizmeci [this message]
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=at-e0pcGZraOSjYi@scheduler.schedules \
--to=kayracizmeci@gmail.com \
--cc=Metin.Kaya@arm.com \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=connoro@google.com \
--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=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=kuyo.chang@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sh@gentwo.org \
--cc=sh_def@163.com \
--cc=soolaugust@gmail.com \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
--cc=zezeozue@google.com \
--cc=zhanxusheng@xiaomi.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®