linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1292609740.2266.323.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:15:40 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention

On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 18:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Hrmph, so is it only about serializing concurrent wakeups? If so, we
> could possibly hold p->pi_lock over the wakeup. 

Something like the below.. except it still suffers from the
__migrate_task() hole you identified in your other email.

By fully serializing all wakeups using ->pi_lock it becomes a lot
simpler (although I just realized we might have a problem with
try_to_wake_up_local).

static int
try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
{
        unsigned long flags;
        int cpu, ret = 0;

        smp_wmb();
        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);

        if (!(p->state & state))
                goto unlock;

        ret = 1; /* we qualify as a proper wakeup now */

        if (p->se.on_rq && ttwu_force(p, state, wake_flags))
                goto unlock;

        p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);

        /*
         * In order to serialize against other tasks wanting to task_rq_lock()
         * we need to wait until the current task_rq(p)->lock holder goes away,
         * so that the next might observe TASK_WAKING.
         */
        p->state = TASK_WAKING;
        smp_wmb();
        raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task_rq(p)->lock);

        /*
         * Stable, now that TASK_WAKING is visible.
         */
        cpu = task_cpu(p);

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
        /*
         * Catch the case where schedule() has done the dequeue but hasn't yet
         * scheduled to a new task, in that case p is still being referenced
         * by that cpu so we cannot wake it to any other cpu.
         *
         * Here we must either do a full remote enqueue, or simply wait for
         * the remote cpu to finish the schedule(), the latter was found to
         * be cheapest.
         */
        while (p->oncpu)
                cpu_relax();

        if (p->sched_class->task_waking)
                p->sched_class->task_waking(p);

        cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
#endif
        ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
        ttwu_stat(p, cpu, wake_flags);
unlock:
        raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);

        return ret;
}

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/