From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.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>,
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: Sat, 24 Oct 2026 11:07:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <atx1U_0FC-fazkV7@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261023220431.1106611-8-jstultz@google.com>
Hi John and Peter,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 10:04:18PM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> If the blocked_on chain resolves to a sleeping owner, deactivate
> the donor task, and enqueue it on the sleeping owner task.
> Then re-activate it later when the owner is woken up.
>
> NOTE: This has been particularly challenging to get working
> properly, and some of the locking is particularly awkward. I'd
> very much appreciate review and feedback for ways to simplify
> this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>
> [jstultz: This was broken out from the larger proxy() patch]
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
> ---
...
> 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 */
nit: s/entitiy/entity/
> + 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: s/usage her/usage here/
> + */
> + 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;
> + }
Is a racing activation the only possible case here? When
proxy_enqueue_on_owner() calls block_task() on a fair task that isn't
eligible, DELAY_DEQUEUE keeps it on_rq with se.sched_delayed set. In
that case p simply won't donate until it's woken by the mutex, so
nothing nasty shoudl happen, but maybe it's worth updating the comment
to describe this case as well?
> + 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);
> + }
Can this break SCHED_DEADLINE bw accounting?
p is sleeping here (not TASK_WAKING, not TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING), so
__set_task_cpu() skips migrate_task_rq_dl(): the old rq never does
sub_rq_bw(), while ENQUEUE_MIGRATED makes the new rq do add_rq_bw(), so
this_bw is leaked on the old rq. And if p is still dl_non_contending,
task_contending() on the new rq just cancels the inactive timer, leaving
running_bw on the old rq forever and making it underflow on the new rq
the next time p blocks.
set_task_cpu() doesn't help, because migrate_task_rq_dl() bails out
unless TASK_WAKING, so I'm not sure how to fix this case...
> + 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);
We can get here also when ttwu_state_match() fails, e.g., a signal sent
to an owner sleeping in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. In that case the owner
never goes through select_task_rq() and task_cpu(owner) is the CPU where
it last slept, which may have gone offline in the meantime (hotplug
only migrates queued tasks I think).
Should this be done only if (success)?
Thanks,
-Andrea
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-24 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ 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
2026-10-23 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
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 4/7] sched/proxy: Set TASK_RUNNING when shortcuting return migration John Stultz
2026-10-24 8:36 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-23 22:04 ` [PATCH v33 5/7] sched/proxy: Break cyclic proxy chains by deactivating blocked tasks John Stultz
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 [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=atx1U_0FC-fazkV7@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=Metin.Kaya@arm.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®