mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
	Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@android.com, Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 16/19] sched: Fix proxy/current (push,pull)ability
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:20:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f6da7769-dcda-f8f9-934d-b581d3e77618@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230819060915.3001568-17-jstultz@google.com>

On 19/08/2023 08:08, John Stultz wrote:
> From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>

[...]

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index bee7082b294f..e8065fc5c894 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -6656,6 +6656,21 @@ proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&mutex->wait_lock);
>  	return ret;
>  }
> +
> +static inline void proxy_tag_curr(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * pick_next_task() calls set_next_task() on the selected task
> +	 * at some point, which ensures it is not push/pullable.
> +	 * However, the selected task *and* the ,mutex owner form an
> +	 * atomic pair wrt push/pull.
> +	 *
> +	 * Make sure owner is not pushable. Unfortunately we can only
> +	 * deal with that by means of a dequeue/enqueue cycle. :-/
> +	 */
> +	dequeue_task(rq, next, DEQUEUE_NOCLOCK | DEQUEUE_SAVE);
> +	enqueue_task(rq, next, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK | ENQUEUE_RESTORE);
> +}
>  #else /* PROXY_EXEC */
>  static struct task_struct *
>  proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
> @@ -6663,6 +6678,8 @@ proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  	BUG(); // This should never be called in the !PROXY case
>  	return next;
>  }
> +
> +static inline void proxy_tag_curr(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next) { }
>  #endif /* PROXY_EXEC */
>  
>  /*
> @@ -6711,6 +6728,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
>  	unsigned long prev_state;
>  	struct rq_flags rf;
>  	struct rq *rq;
> +	bool proxied;
>  	int cpu;
>  
>  	cpu = smp_processor_id();
> @@ -6760,6 +6778,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
>  		switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
>  	}
>  
> +	proxied = (rq_selected(rq) != prev);

Looks like proxied isn't used here. (*)

>  pick_again:
>  	next = pick_next_task(rq, rq_selected(rq), &rf);
>  	rq_set_selected(rq, next);
> @@ -6786,6 +6805,10 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
>  		 * changes to task_struct made by pick_next_task().
>  		 */
>  		RCU_INIT_POINTER(rq->curr, next);
> +
> +		if (unlikely(!task_current_selected(rq, next)))
> +			proxy_tag_curr(rq, next);
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * The membarrier system call requires each architecture
>  		 * to have a full memory barrier after updating
> @@ -6810,6 +6833,10 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
>  		/* Also unlocks the rq: */
>  		rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf);
>  	} else {
> +		/* In case next was already curr but just got blocked_donor*/
> +		if (unlikely(!task_current_selected(rq, next)))
> +			proxy_tag_curr(rq, next);

(*) v4 had:

+          /* In case next was already curr but just got blocked_donor*/
+             if (unlikely(!proxied && next->blocked_donor))

> +
>  		rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP);
>  
>  		rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);

I miss changes in enqueue_task_rt() and put_prev_task_rt() related to
'affinity of blocked tasks doesn't matter' from v4.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-22 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-19  6:08 [PATCH v5 00/19] Proxy Execution: A generalized form of Priority Inheritance v5 John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 01/19] sched: Unify runtime accounting across classes John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 02/19] locking/mutex: Removes wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock John Stultz
2023-08-22 19:11   ` Waiman Long
2023-08-22 19:24     ` John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 03/19] locking/mutex: make mutex::wait_lock irq safe John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 04/19] locking/mutex: Expose __mutex_owner() John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 05/19] locking/mutex: Rework task_struct::blocked_on John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 06/19] locking/mutex: Add task_struct::blocked_lock to serialize changes to the blocked_on state John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 07/19] locking/mutex: Add p->blocked_on wrappers for correctness checks John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 08/19] locking/mutex: Split blocked_on logic into two states (blocked_on and blocked_on_waking) John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 09/19] locking/mutex: Switch to mutex handoffs for CONFIG_PROXY_EXEC John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 10/19] sched: Split scheduler execution context John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 11/19] sched: Fix runtime accounting w/ split exec & sched contexts John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 12/19] sched: Unnest ttwu_runnable in prep for proxy-execution John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 13/19] sched: Split out __sched() deactivate task logic into a helper John Stultz
2023-08-23 21:12   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-23 21:25     ` John Stultz
2023-08-24  0:00   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-24  0:34   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 14/19] sched: Add a very simple proxy() function John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 15/19] sched: Add proxy deactivate helper John Stultz
2023-08-24 11:34   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 16/19] sched: Fix proxy/current (push,pull)ability John Stultz
2023-08-22 15:20   ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2023-08-22 16:19     ` John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 17/19] sched: Start blocked_on chain processing in proxy() John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 18/19] sched: Handle blocked-waiter migration (and return migration) John Stultz
2023-08-19  6:08 ` [PATCH v5 19/19] sched: Add blocked_donor link to task for smarter mutex handoffs John Stultz

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=f6da7769-dcda-f8f9-934d-b581d3e77618@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=connoro@google.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qyousef@google.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=youssefesmat@google.com \
    --cc=zezeozue@google.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®