[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yv4WJQAGw0zgU3nH@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:36:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] sched/fair: allow changing cgroup of new forked
task
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:43:41AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 8e3f1c3f0b2c..157f7461a08a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4550,11 +4550,11 @@ int sched_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> __sched_fork(clone_flags, p);
> /*
> - * We mark the process as NEW here. This guarantees that
> + * We mark the process as running here. This guarantees that
> * nobody will actually run it, and a signal or other external
> * event cannot wake it up and insert it on the runqueue either.
> */
> - p->__state = TASK_NEW;
> + p->__state = TASK_RUNNING;
>
> /*
> * Make sure we do not leak PI boosting priority to the child.
> @@ -4672,7 +4672,6 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct *p)
> struct rq *rq;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, rf.flags);
> - WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /*
> * Fork balancing, do it here and not earlier because:
> @@ -10290,36 +10289,19 @@ static void cpu_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
> sched_unregister_group(tg);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index eba8a64f905a..e0d34ecdabae 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -11840,6 +11840,13 @@ void init_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> static void task_change_group_fair(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> + /*
> + * We couldn't detach or attach a forked task which
> + * hasn't been woken up by wake_up_new_task().
> + */
> + if (!p->on_rq && !p->se.sum_exec_runtime)
> + return;
> +
> detach_task_cfs_rq(p);
Wouldn't that be much clearer when expressed in TASK_NEW ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists