linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ

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: <1407832463.23412.2.camel@tkhai>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:34:23 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <pjt@...gle.com>,
	<oleg@...hat.com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	<umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
	<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
	<nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] sched: Teach scheduler to understand
 ONRQ_MIGRATING state

В Вт, 12/08/2014 в 09:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 12:06:19PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -331,9 +331,13 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
> >  	lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
> >  
> >  	for (;;) {
> > +		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> > +			cpu_relax();
> > +
> >  		rq = task_rq(p);
> >  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > -		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
> > +		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
> > +			   !task_migrating(p)))
> >  			return rq;
> >  		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> >  	}
> > @@ -349,10 +353,14 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long *flags)
> >  	struct rq *rq;
> >  
> >  	for (;;) {
> > +		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> > +			cpu_relax();
> > +
> >  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
> >  		rq = task_rq(p);
> >  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > -		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
> > +		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
> > +			   !task_migrating(p)))
> >  			return rq;
> >  		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> >  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
> 
> I know I suggested that; but I changed it like the below. The advantage
> is of not having two task_migrating() tests on the likely path.

I don't have objections. Should I resend the series (also with new [4/6] log
commentary)?

> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -331,15 +331,15 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
>  
>  	for (;;) {
> -		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> -			cpu_relax();
> -
>  		rq = task_rq(p);
>  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>  		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
>  			   !task_migrating(p)))
>  			return rq;
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> +
> +		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> +			cpu_relax();
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -353,9 +353,6 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct ta
>  	struct rq *rq;
>  
>  	for (;;) {
> -		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> -			cpu_relax();
> -
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
>  		rq = task_rq(p);
>  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> @@ -364,6 +361,9 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct ta
>  			return rq;
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
> +
> +		while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> +			cpu_relax();
>  	}
>  }
>  


--
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/