[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230601091234.GW83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:12:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Consider task_struct::saved_state in
wait_task_inactive().
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2023-05-26 10:05:43 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > New day, new chances... How's this? Code-gen doesn't look totally
> > insane, but then, making sense of an optimizing compiler's output is
> > always a wee challenge.
>
> Noticed it too late but looks good. Tested, works.
Excellent; full patch below. Will go stick in tip/sched/core soonish.
---
Subject: sched: Consider task_struct::saved_state in wait_task_inactive()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Wed May 31 16:39:07 CEST 2023
With the introduction of task_struct::saved_state in commit
5f220be21418 ("sched/wakeup: Prepare for RT sleeping spin/rwlocks")
matching the task state has gotten more complicated. That same commit
changed try_to_wake_up() to consider both states, but
wait_task_inactive() has been neglected.
Sebastian noted that the wait_task_inactive() usage in
ptrace_check_attach() can misbehave when ptrace_stop() is blocked on
the tasklist_lock after it sets TASK_TRACED.
Therefore extract a common helper from ttwu_state_match() and use that
to teach wait_task_inactive() about the PREEMPT_RT locks.
Originally-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3341,6 +3341,39 @@ int migrate_swap(struct task_struct *cur
}
#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING */
+static __always_inline
+int __task_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state)
+{
+ if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) & state)
+ return 1;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+ if (READ_ONCE(p->saved_state) & state)
+ return -1;
+#endif
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static __always_inline
+int task_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+ int match;
+
+ /*
+ * Serialize against current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() and
+ * current_restore_rtlock_saved_state().
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
+ match = __task_state_match(p, state);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
+
+ return match;
+#else
+ return __task_state_match(p, state);
+#endif
+}
+
/*
* wait_task_inactive - wait for a thread to unschedule.
*
@@ -3359,7 +3392,7 @@ int migrate_swap(struct task_struct *cur
*/
unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int match_state)
{
- int running, queued;
+ int running, queued, match;
struct rq_flags rf;
unsigned long ncsw;
struct rq *rq;
@@ -3385,7 +3418,7 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct
* is actually now running somewhere else!
*/
while (task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
- if (!(READ_ONCE(p->__state) & match_state))
+ if (!task_state_match(p, match_state))
return 0;
cpu_relax();
}
@@ -3400,8 +3433,15 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct
running = task_on_cpu(rq, p);
queued = task_on_rq_queued(p);
ncsw = 0;
- if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) & match_state)
+ if ((match = __task_state_match(p, match_state))) {
+ /*
+ * When matching on p->saved_state, consider this task
+ * still queued so it will wait.
+ */
+ if (match < 0)
+ queued = 1;
ncsw = p->nvcsw | LONG_MIN; /* sets MSB */
+ }
task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
/*
@@ -4003,15 +4043,14 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struc
static __always_inline
bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int *success)
{
+ int match;
+
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT)) {
WARN_ON_ONCE((state & TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT) &&
state != TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
}
- if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) & state) {
- *success = 1;
- return true;
- }
+ *success = !!(match = __task_state_match(p, state));
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
/*
@@ -4027,12 +4066,10 @@ bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct
* p::saved_state to TASK_RUNNING so any further tests will
* not result in false positives vs. @success
*/
- if (p->saved_state & state) {
+ if (match < 0)
p->saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
- *success = 1;
- }
#endif
- return false;
+ return match > 0;
}
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists