Message-ID: <20241214000559.GC17501@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 01:05:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@....com>,
	Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v14 5/7] sched: Add an initial sketch of the
 find_proxy_task() function

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:51:59AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f8714050b6d0d..b492506d33415 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5052,6 +5052,34 @@ static void do_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, struct balance_callback *head)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Only called from __schedule context
> + *
> + * There are some cases where we are going to re-do the action
> + * that added the balance callbacks. We may not be in a state
> + * where we can run them, so just zap them so they can be
> + * properly re-added on the next time around. This is similar
> + * handling to running the callbacks, except we just don't call
> + * them.
> + */

Which specific callbacks are this? sched_core_balance()?

In general, shooting down all callbacks like this makes me feel somewhat
uncomfortable.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *
> +proxy_resched_idle(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	put_prev_task(rq, rq->donor);
> +	rq_set_donor(rq, rq->idle);
> +	set_next_task(rq, rq->idle);
> +	set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> +	return rq->idle;
> +}
> +
> +static bool proxy_deactivate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor)
> +{
> +	unsigned long state = READ_ONCE(donor->__state);
> +
> +	/* Don't deactivate if the state has been changed to TASK_RUNNING */
> +	if (state == TASK_RUNNING)
> +		return false;
> +	/*
> +	 * Because we got donor from pick_next_task, it is *crucial*
> +	 * that we call proxy_resched_idle before we deactivate it.
> +	 * As once we deactivate donor, donor->on_rq is set to zero,
> +	 * which allows ttwu to immediately try to wake the task on
> +	 * another rq. So we cannot use *any* references to donor
> +	 * after that point. So things like cfs_rq->curr or rq->donor
> +	 * need to be changed from next *before* we deactivate.
> +	 */
> +	proxy_resched_idle(rq);
> +	return try_to_block_task(rq, donor, state, true);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Initial simple proxy that just returns the task if it's waking
> + * or deactivates the blocked task so we can pick something that
> + * isn't blocked.
> + */
> +static struct task_struct *
> +find_proxy_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *p = donor;
> +	struct mutex *mutex;
> +
> +	mutex = p->blocked_on;
> +	/* Something changed in the chain, so pick again */
> +	if (!mutex)
> +		return NULL;
> +	/*
> +	 * By taking mutex->wait_lock we hold off concurrent mutex_unlock()
> +	 * and ensure @owner sticks around.
> +	 */
> +	raw_spin_lock(&mutex->wait_lock);
> +	raw_spin_lock(&p->blocked_lock);

I'm still wondering what this blocked_lock does, that previous patch had
it mirror wait_mutex too, so far I don't see the point.

> +
> +	/* Check again that p is blocked with blocked_lock held */
> +	if (!task_is_blocked(p) || mutex != get_task_blocked_on(p)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Something changed in the blocked_on chain and
> +		 * we don't know if only at this level. So, let's
> +		 * just bail out completely and let __schedule
> +		 * figure things out (pick_again loop).
> +		 */
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	if (!proxy_deactivate(rq, donor))
> +		/* XXX: This hack won't work when we get to migrations */
> +		donor->blocked_on_state = BO_RUNNABLE;
> +
> +out:
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&p->blocked_lock);
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&mutex->wait_lock);
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +#else /* SCHED_PROXY_EXEC */
> +static struct task_struct *
> +find_proxy_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> +	WARN_ONCE(1, "This should never be called in the !SCHED_PROXY_EXEC case\n");
> +	return donor;
> +}
> +#endif /* SCHED_PROXY_EXEC */
> +
>  /*
>   * __schedule() is the main scheduler function.
>   *
> @@ -6732,12 +6845,22 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
>  			goto picked;
>  		}
>  	} else if (!preempt && prev_state) {
> -		block = try_to_block_task(rq, prev, prev_state);
> +		block = try_to_block_task(rq, prev, prev_state,
> +					  !task_is_blocked(prev));
>  		switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
>  	}
>  
> -	next = pick_next_task(rq, prev, &rf);
> +pick_again:
> +	next = pick_next_task(rq, rq->donor, &rf);
>  	rq_set_donor(rq, next);
> +	if (unlikely(task_is_blocked(next))) {
> +		next = find_proxy_task(rq, next, &rf);
> +		if (!next) {
> +			/* zap the balance_callbacks before picking again */
> +			zap_balance_callbacks(rq);
> +			goto pick_again;
> +		}
> +	}
>  picked:
>  	clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
>  	clear_preempt_need_resched();

Powered by blists - more mailing lists