[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YBrUgxLfjcpjwgo6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:51:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
benbjiang@...cent.com,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] sched: CGroup tagging interface for core
scheduling
I'm slowly starting to go through this...
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:17:01PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> +static bool sched_core_empty(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rq->core_tree);
> +}
> +
> +static struct task_struct *sched_core_first(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *task;
> +
> + task = container_of(rb_first(&rq->core_tree), struct task_struct, core_node);
> + return task;
> +}
AFAICT you can do with:
static struct task_struct *sched_core_any(struct rq *rq)
{
return rb_entry(rq->core_tree.rb_node, struct task_struct, code_node);
}
> +static void sched_core_flush(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + struct task_struct *task;
> +
> + while (!sched_core_empty(rq)) {
> + task = sched_core_first(rq);
> + rb_erase(&task->core_node, &rq->core_tree);
> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&task->core_node);
> + }
> + rq->core->core_task_seq++;
> +}
However,
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(enabled == rq->core_enabled);
> +
> + if (!enabled || (enabled && cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) >= 2)) {
> + /*
> + * All active and migrating tasks will have already
> + * been removed from core queue when we clear the
> + * cgroup tags. However, dying tasks could still be
> + * left in core queue. Flush them here.
> + */
> + if (!enabled)
> + sched_core_flush(cpu);
> +
> + rq->core_enabled = enabled;
> + }
> + }
I'm not sure I understand. Is the problem that we're still schedulable
during do_exit() after cgroup_exit() ? It could be argued that when we
leave the cgroup there, we should definitely leave the tag group too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists