[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f18c42e4-ead7-fbcd-b7da-6677e8485be9@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:34:36 +0530
From: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@...eaurora.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...nel.org,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against
wakeup
On 4/26/2018 1:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:03:19PM +0530, Gaurav Kohli wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/smpboot.c b/kernel/smpboot.c
>> index 5043e74..c5c5184 100644
>> --- a/kernel/smpboot.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smpboot.c
>> @@ -122,7 +122,45 @@ static int smpboot_thread_fn(void *data)
>> }
>>
>> if (kthread_should_park()) {
>> + /*
>> + * Serialize against wakeup.
> *
> * Prior wakeups must complete and later wakeups
> * will observe TASK_RUNNING.
> *
> * This avoids the case where the TASK_RUNNING
> * store from ttwu() competes with the
> * TASK_PARKED store from kthread_parkme().
> *
> * If the TASK_PARKED store looses that
> * competition, kthread_unpark() will go wobbly.
>> + */
>> + raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock);
>> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> + raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
>> preempt_enable();
>> if (ht->park && td->status == HP_THREAD_ACTIVE) {
>> BUG_ON(td->cpu != smp_processor_id());
> Does that work for you?
We have given patch for testing, usually it takes around 2-3 days for reproduction(we will update for the same).
>
> But looking at this a bit more; don't we have the exact same problem
> with the TASK_RUNNING store in the !ht->thread_should_run() case?
> Suppose a ttwu() happens concurrently there, it can end up competing
> against the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE store, no?
>
> Of course, that race is not fatal, we'll just end up going around the
> loop once again I suppose. Maybe a comment there too?
>
> /*
> * A similar race is possible here, but loosing
> * the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE store is harmless and
> * will make us go around the loop once more.
> */
Actually instead of race, i am seeing wakeup miss problem which is very rare, if we take case of hotplug thread
Controller Hotplug
Loop start
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (kthread_should_park()) { -> fails
Set Should_park
then wake_up
if (!ht->thread_should_run(td->cpu)) {
preempt_enable_no_resched();
schedule(); Again went to schedule(which is very rare to occur,not sure whether it hits)
>
> And of course, I suspect we actually want to use TASK_IDLE, smpboot
> threads don't want signals do they? But that probably ought to be a
> separate patch.
Yes I agree, we can control race from here as well, Please suggest would below change be any help here:
} else {
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
preempt_enable();
ht->thread_fn(td->cpu);
+ set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule();
}
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists