[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211206095747.GA486204@ubiquitous>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:57:47 +0000
From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Fix detection of per-CPU kthreads waking
a task
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:53:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 02:34:50PM +0000, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > select_idle_sibling() has a special case for tasks woken up by a per-CPU
> > kthread, where the selected CPU is the previous one. However, the current
> > condition for this exit path is incomplete. A task can wake up from an
> > interrupt context (e.g. hrtimer), while a per-CPU kthread is running. A
> > such scenario would spuriously trigger the special case described above.
> > Also, a recent change made the idle task like a regular per-CPU kthread,
> > hence making that situation more likely to happen
> > (is_per_cpu_kthread(swapper) being true now).
> >
> > Checking for task context makes sure select_idle_sibling() will not
> > interpret a wake up from any other context as a wake up by a per-CPU
> > kthread.
> >
> > Fixes: 52262ee567ad ("sched/fair: Allow a per-CPU kthread waking a task to stack on the same CPU, to fix XFS performance regression")
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 945d987246c5..56db4ae85995 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -6399,6 +6399,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> > * pattern is IO completions.
> > */
> > if (is_per_cpu_kthread(current) &&
> > + in_task() &&
> > prev == smp_processor_id() &&
> > this_rq()->nr_running <= 1) {
> > return prev;
>
> Hurmph, so now I have two 'trivial' patches from you that touch this
> same function and they's conflicting. I've fixed it up, but perhaps it
> would've been nice to have them combined in a series or somesuch :-)
>
I definitely should have created a single patchset. Apologies for the
extra work and thanks for taking those two patches!
On another subject, in case you missed them, I also have two tiny fixes,
reviewed by Vincent:
[PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Fix asym_fits_capacity() task_util type
[PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Fix task_fits_capacity() capacity type
Powered by blists - more mailing lists