From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@meta.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
lclaudio00@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 22:14:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250728201441.GA4690@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aGvTz5VaPFyj0pBV@uudg.org>
On 07/07, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
>
> Instead of adding more complex conditions to decide when to directly
> call __put_task_struct() and when to defer the call, unconditionally
> resort to the deferred call on PREEMPT_RT to simplify the code.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Confused... with this patch put_task_struct() always uses the deferred
call, regardless of PREEMPT_RT?
Oleg.
> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> @@ -135,24 +135,17 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> return;
>
> /*
> - * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
> - * Under RT, we can only call it in preemptible context.
> - */
> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || preemptible()) {
> - static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(put_task_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> -
> - lock_map_acquire_try(&put_task_map);
> - __put_task_struct(t);
> - lock_map_release(&put_task_map);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> + * Under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call __put_task_struct
> * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> - * acquire sleeping locks.
> + * acquire sleeping locks. The same is true if the
> + * current process has a mutex enqueued (blocked on
> + * a PI chain).
> + *
> + * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
> + * Though, in order to simplify the code, resort to the
> + * deferred call too.
> *
> - * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> + * call_rcu() will schedule __put_task_struct_rcu_cb()
> * to be called in process context.
> *
> * __put_task_struct() is called when
> @@ -165,7 +158,7 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> *
> * delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
> * when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
> - * way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
> + * way it can conflict with __put_task_struct().
> */
> call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
> }
> --
> 2.50.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-28 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 14:03 [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-10 16:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-07-14 14:15 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-07-16 10:19 ` [tip: sched/core] sched: Do " tip-bot2 for Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-28 20:14 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-07-29 7:33 ` [PATCH v6] sched: do " Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 11:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-29 12:45 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 13:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:51 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-08-11 10:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 11:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:16 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 12:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-20 14:53 ` usage of DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(LD_WAIT_SLEEP) Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 13:53 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 15:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 19:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 10:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-24 10:39 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 15:19 ` 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=20250728201441.GA4690@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=crwood@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dvernet@meta.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lclaudio00@gmail.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wander@redhat.com \
/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.