| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <17c632a6-303e-2726-62ae-5c81577bc79a@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:52:00 +0800
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bagasdotme@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/core: Minor optimize ttwu_runnable()
On 2022/12/3 15:55, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2022-12-02 at 16:06:44 +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> ttwu_runnable() is used as a fast wakeup path when the wakee task
>> is running on CPU or runnable on RQ, in both cases we can just
>> set its state to TASK_RUNNING to prevent a sleep.
>>
>> If the wakee task is on_cpu running, we don't need to update_rq_clock()
>> or check_preempt_curr().
>>
>> But if the wakee task is on_rq && !on_cpu (e.g. an IRQ hit before
>> the task got to schedule() and the task been preempted), we should
>> check_preempt_curr() to see if it can preempt the current running.
>>
>> Reorganize ttwu_do_wakeup() and ttwu_do_activate() to make
>> ttwu_do_wakeup() only mark the task runnable, so it can be used
>> in ttwu_runnable() and try_to_wake_up() fast paths.
>>
>> This also removes the class->task_woken() callback from ttwu_runnable(),
>> which wasn't required per the RT/DL implementations: any required push
>> operation would have been queued during class->set_next_task() when p
>> got preempted.
>>
>> ttwu_runnable() also loses the update to rq->idle_stamp, as by definition
>> the rq cannot be idle in this scenario.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
>> Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> v4:
>> - s/This patch reorg/Reorganize/ per Bagas Sanjaya. Thanks!
>>
>> v3:
>> - Improve the changelog per Valentin Schneider. Thanks!
>>
>> v2:
>> - keep check_preempt_curr() for on_rq && !on_cpu case in ttwu_runnable(),
>> per Valentin Schneider.
>> - reorg ttwu_do_wakeup() and ttwu_do_activate() code, so ttwu_do_wakeup()
>> can be reused in ttwu_runnable(), per Peter Zijlstra.
>> - reuse ttwu_do_wakeup() in try_to_wake_up() (p == current) fast path too,
>> so ttwu_do_wakeup() become the only place we mark task runnable.
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 314c2c0219d9..d8216485b0ad 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3623,14 +3623,39 @@ ttwu_stat(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Mark the task runnable and perform wakeup-preemption.
>> + * Mark the task runnable.
>> */
>> -static void ttwu_do_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
>> - struct rq_flags *rf)
>> +static inline void ttwu_do_wakeup(struct task_struct *p)
>> {
>> - check_preempt_curr(rq, p, wake_flags);
>> WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
>> trace_sched_wakeup(p);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> +ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
>> + struct rq_flags *rf)
>> +{
>> + int en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
>> +
>> + lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
>> +
>> + if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
>> + rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> + if (wake_flags & WF_MIGRATED)
>> + en_flags |= ENQUEUE_MIGRATED;
>> + else
>> +#endif
>> + if (p->in_iowait) {
>> + delayacct_blkio_end(p);
>> + atomic_dec(&task_rq(p)->nr_iowait);
>> + }
>> +
>> + activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
>> + check_preempt_curr(rq, p, wake_flags);
>> +
>> + ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> if (p->sched_class->task_woken) {
>> @@ -3660,31 +3685,6 @@ static void ttwu_do_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> -static void
>> -ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
>> - struct rq_flags *rf)
>> -{
>> - int en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
>> -
>> - lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
>> -
>> - if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
>> - rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>> -
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> - if (wake_flags & WF_MIGRATED)
>> - en_flags |= ENQUEUE_MIGRATED;
>> - else
>> -#endif
>> - if (p->in_iowait) {
>> - delayacct_blkio_end(p);
>> - atomic_dec(&task_rq(p)->nr_iowait);
>> - }
>> -
>> - activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
>> - ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, wake_flags, rf);
>> -}
>> -
>> /*
>> * Consider @p being inside a wait loop:
>> *
>> @@ -3718,9 +3718,15 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
>>
>> rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
>> if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
>> - /* check_preempt_curr() may use rq clock */
>> - update_rq_clock(rq);
>> - ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, wake_flags, &rf);
>> + if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
>> + /*
>> + * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
>> + * it should preempt whatever is current there now.
>> + */
>> + update_rq_clock(rq);
>> + check_preempt_curr(rq, p, wake_flags);
>> + }
>> + ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
>> ret = 1;
>> }
>> __task_rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
>> @@ -4086,8 +4092,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
>> goto out;
>>
>> trace_sched_waking(p);
>> - WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
>> - trace_sched_wakeup(p);
>> + ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
> Just wonder if we could split the reorganization and optimization into two patches,
> so we can track the code change a little easier in the future?
Thanks for your suggestion.
I'll try to split into two patches later and resend.
Thanks.
>
> thanks,
> Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists