[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2b90fa283d1655d73576eb392949d9b1539070d.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 16:22:30 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
wuyun.abel@...edance.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
On Wed, 2024-11-06 at 15:14 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 02:53:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 54d82c21fc8e..b083c6385e88 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3774,28 +3774,38 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
> > */
> > static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
> > {
> > + CLASS(__task_rq_lock, rq_guard)(p);
> > + struct rq *rq = rq_guard.rq;
> >
> > + if (!task_on_rq_queued(p))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + update_rq_clock(rq);
> > + if (p->se.sched_delayed) {
> > + int queue_flags = ENQUEUE_DELAYED | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Since sched_delayed means we cannot be current anywhere,
> > + * dequeue it here and have it fall through to the
> > + * select_task_rq() case further along the ttwu() path.
> > + */
> > + if (rq->nr_running > 1 && p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1) {
> > + dequeue_task(rq, p, DEQUEUE_SLEEP | queue_flags);
> > + return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > + enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
>
> And then I wondered... this means that !task_on_cpu() is true for
> sched_delayed, and thus we can move this in the below branch.
>
> But also, we can probably dequeue every such task, not only
> sched_delayed ones.
>
> > }
> > + if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
> > + /*
> > + * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
> > + * it should preempt the task that is current now.
> > + */
> > + wakeup_preempt(rq, p, wake_flags);
> > + }
> > + ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
> >
> > + return 1;
> > }
>
>
> Yielding something like this on top... which boots. But since I forgot
> to make it a feature, I can't actually tell at this point.. *sigh*
>
> Anyway, more toys to poke at I suppose.
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b083c6385e88..69b19ba77598 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3781,28 +3781,32 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
> return 0;
>
> update_rq_clock(rq);
> - if (p->se.sched_delayed) {
> - int queue_flags = ENQUEUE_DELAYED | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
> + if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
> + int queue_flags = DEQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
> +
> + if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> + queue_flags |= DEQUEUE_DELAYED;
>
> /*
> - * Since sched_delayed means we cannot be current anywhere,
> - * dequeue it here and have it fall through to the
> - * select_task_rq() case further along the ttwu() path.
> + * Since we're not current anywhere *AND* hold pi_lock, dequeue
> + * it here and have it fall through to the select_task_rq()
> + * case further along the ttwu() path.
> */
> if (rq->nr_running > 1 && p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1) {
> dequeue_task(rq, p, DEQUEUE_SLEEP | queue_flags);
> return 0;
> }
Hm, if we try to bounce a preempted task and fail, the wakeup_preempt()
call won't happen.
Bouncing preempted tasks is double edged sword.. on the one hand, it's
a huge win if bounce works for communicating tasks who will otherwise
be talking around the not-my-buddy man-in-the-middle who did the
preempting, but on the other, when PELT has its white hat on (also has
a black one) and has buddies pairing up nicely in an approaching
saturation scenario, bounces disturb it, add chaos. Dunno.
>
> - enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
> - }
> - if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
> + if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> + enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
> +
> /*
> * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
> * it should preempt the task that is current now.
> */
> wakeup_preempt(rq, p, wake_flags);
> }
> + SCHED_WARN_ON(p->se.sched_delayed);
> ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
>
> return 1;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists