Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:38:08 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to
 the remote cpu

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 16:22 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Why sched_fork() does set_task_cpu() ? Just curious, it seems
> that wake_up_new_task() does all we need.

The only reason I can come up with is to properly initialize the
data-structures before make the thing visible, by the time
wake_up_new_task() comes along, its already fully visible.

> ttwu_queue_remote() does "struct task_struct *next = NULL".
> Probably "next = rq->wake_list" makes more sens. Otherwise the
> first cmpxchg() always fails if rq->wake_list != NULL.

Indeed, I think Yong mentioned the same a while back.. done.

> Doesn't __migrate_task() need pi_lock? Consider:
> 
> 1. A task T runs on CPU_0, it does set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUBTIBLE)
> 
> 2. some CPU does set_cpus_allowed_ptr(T, new_mask), new_mask doesn't
>    include CPU_0.
> 
>    T is running, cpumask_any_and() picks CPU_1, set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
>    drops pi_lock and rq->lock before stop_one_cpu().
> 
> 3. T calls schedule() and becomes deactivated.
> 
> 4. CPU_2 does try_to_wake_up(T, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE), takes pi_lock
>    and sees on_rq == F.
>
> 5. set_cpus_allowed_ptr() resumes and calls stop_one_cpu(cpu => 1).
> 
> 6. cpu_stopper_thread() runs on CPU_1 and calls ____migrate_task().
>    It locks CPU_0 and CPU_1 rq's and checks task_cpu() == src_cpu.
> 
> 7. CPU_2 calls select_task_rq(), it returns (to simplify) 2.
> 
>    Now try_to_wake_up() does set_task_cpu(T, 2), and calls
>    ttwu_queue()->ttwu_do_activate()->activate_task().
> 
> 8. __migrate_task() on CPU_1 sees p->on_rq and starts the
>    deactivate/activate dance racing with ttwu_do_activate()
>    on CPU_2.

Drad, yes I think you're right, now you've got me worried about the
other migration paths too.. however did you come up with that
scenario? :-)

A simple fix would be to keep ->pi_lock locked over the call to
stop_one_cpu() from set_cpus_allowed_ptr().

I think the sched_fair.c load-balance code paths are ok because we only
find a task to migrate after we've obtained both runqueue locks, so even
if we migrate current, it cannot schedule (step 3).

I'm not at all sure about the sched_rt load-balance paths, will need to
twist my head around that..


> And a final question. This is really, really minor, but
> activate_task/deactivate_task are not symmetric, the former
> always sets p->on_rq. Looks correct, but imho a bit confusing and
> can complicate the understanding. Since p->on_rq is cleared
> explicitly by schedule(), perhaps it can be set explicitly to
> in try_to_wake_up_*. Or, perhaps, activate/deactivate can check
> ENQUEUE_WAKEUP/DEQUEUE_SLEEP and set/clear p->on_rq. Once again,
> this is purely cosmetic issue.

Right, only because I didn't want to add conditionals and there's two
ENQUEUE_WAKEUP sites and didn't want to replicate the assignment. I'll
fix it up.


--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists