[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220608233412.327341-2-dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:34:11 +0800
From: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RESEND v4 1/2] sched: Fix the check of nr_running at queue wakelist
The commit 2ebb17717550 ("sched/core: Offload wakee task activation if it
the wakee is descheduling") checked rq->nr_running <= 1 to avoid task
stacking when WF_ON_CPU.
Per the ordering of writes to p->on_rq and p->on_cpu, observing p->on_cpu
(WF_ON_CPU) in ttwu_queue_cond() implies !p->on_rq, IOW p has gone through
the deactivate_task() in __schedule(), thus p has been accounted out of
rq->nr_running. As such, the task being the only runnable task on the rq
implies reading rq->nr_running == 0 at that point.
The benchmark result is in [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/e34de686-4e85-bde1-9f3c-9bbc86b38627@linux.alibaba.com/
Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 21db6816a7bd..a4bdb2b95976 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3829,8 +3829,12 @@ static inline bool ttwu_queue_cond(int cpu, int wake_flags)
* CPU then use the wakelist to offload the task activation to
* the soon-to-be-idle CPU as the current CPU is likely busy.
* nr_running is checked to avoid unnecessary task stacking.
+ *
+ * Note that we can only get here with (wakee) p->on_rq=0,
+ * p->on_cpu can be whatever, we've done the dequeue, so
+ * the wakee has been accounted out of ->nr_running.
*/
- if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
+ if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running)
return true;
return false;
--
2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists