From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
hpa@zytor.com, markus.t.metzger@gmail.com, roland@redhat.com,
eranian@googlemail.com, juan.villacis@intel.com,
ak@linux.jf.intel.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/21] x86, bts: wait until traced task has been scheduled out
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 02:17:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090401001729.GC28228@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090331145947.A12565@sedona.ch.intel.com>
On 03/31, Markus Metzger wrote:
>
> +static void wait_to_unschedule(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + unsigned long nvcsw;
> + unsigned long nivcsw;
> +
> + if (!task)
> + return;
> +
> + if (task == current)
> + return;
> +
> + nvcsw = task->nvcsw;
> + nivcsw = task->nivcsw;
> + for (;;) {
> + if (!task_is_running(task))
> + break;
> + /*
> + * The switch count is incremented before the actual
> + * context switch. We thus wait for two switches to be
> + * sure at least one completed.
> + */
> + if ((task->nvcsw - nvcsw) > 1)
> + break;
> + if ((task->nivcsw - nivcsw) > 1)
> + break;
> +
> + schedule();
schedule() is a nop here. We can wait unpredictably long...
Ingo, do have have any ideas to improve this helper?
Not that I really like it, but how about
int force_unschedule(struct task_struct *p)
{
struct rq *rq;
unsigned long flags;
int running;
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
running = task_running(rq, p);
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
if (running)
wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
return running;
}
which should be used instead of task_is_running() ?
We can even do something like
void wait_to_unschedule(struct task_struct *task)
{
struct migration_req req;
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &task);
running = task_running(rq, p);
if (running) {
// make sure __migrate_task() will do nothing
req->dest_cpu = NR_CPUS + 1;
init_completion(&req->done);
list_add(&req->list, &rq->migration_queue);
}
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
if (running) {
wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
wait_for_completion(&req.done);
}
}
This way we don't poll, and we need only one helper.
(Can't resist, this patch is not bisect friendly, without the next patches
wait_to_unschedule() is called under write_lock_irq, this is deadlockable).
But anyway, I think we can do this later.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-01 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-31 12:59 [patch 3/21] x86, bts: wait until traced task has been scheduled out Markus Metzger
2009-04-01 0:17 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-04-01 8:09 ` Metzger, Markus T
2009-04-01 19:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-01 19:52 ` Markus Metzger
2009-04-01 11:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 12:43 ` Metzger, Markus T
2009-04-01 12:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 19:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-01 0:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090401001729.GC28228@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.jf.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@googlemail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=juan.villacis@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markus.t.metzger@gmail.com \
--cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.