All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:31:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF38A72.9000900@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257462632.6560.8.camel@marge.simson.net>

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> A bit of late night cut/paste fixed it right up, so tomorrow, I can redo
> benchmarks etc etc.
> 
> Lai, mind giving this a try?  I believe this will fix your problem as
> well as mine.

My problem: a bound task is run on a different cpu. You haven't describe
how does it happen, how do you think this patch will fix my problem?

> 
> sched: fix runqueue locking buglet.
> 
> Calling set_task_cpu() with the runqueue unlocked is unsafe.  Add cpu_rq_lock()
> locking primitive, and lock the runqueue.  Also, update rq->clock before calling
> set_task_cpu(), as it could be stale.
> 
> Running netperf UDP_STREAM with two pinned tasks with tip 1b9508f applied emitted
> the thoroughly unbelievable result that ratelimiting newidle could produce twice
> the throughput of the virgin kernel.  Reverting to locking the runqueue prior to
> runqueue selection restored benchmarking sanity, as finally did this patchlet.
> 

[...]

> ---
>  kernel/sched.c |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.32.git.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,32 @@ static struct rq *this_rq_lock(void)
>  	return rq;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * cpu_rq_lock - lock the runqueue a given task resides on and disable
> + * interrupts. Note the ordering: we can safely lookup the cpu_rq without
> + * explicitly disabling preemption.
> + */
> +static struct rq *cpu_rq_lock(int cpu, unsigned long *flags)
> +	__acquires(rq->lock)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq;
> +
> +	for (;;) {
> +		local_irq_save(*flags);
> +		rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +		if (likely(rq == cpu_rq(cpu)))
> +			return rq;
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static inline void cpu_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> +	__releases(rq->lock)
> +{
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> +}
> +

The above code is totally garbage, cpu_rq(cpu) is constant.

>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
>  /*
>   * Use HR-timers to deliver accurate preemption points.
> @@ -2345,13 +2371,12 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
>  	task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
>  
>  	cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> -	if (cpu != orig_cpu)
> -		set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> -
> -	rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> -
> -	if (rq != orig_rq)
> +	if (cpu != orig_cpu) {
> +		rq = cpu_rq_lock(cpu, &flags);
>  		update_rq_clock(rq);
> +		set_task_cpu(p, cpu);

Process p's runqueue may not have been locked.


> +	} else
> +		rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
>  
>  	if (rq->idle_stamp) {
>  		u64 delta = rq->clock - rq->idle_stamp;
> @@ -2365,7 +2390,6 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
>  	}
>  
>  	WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
> -	cpu = task_cpu(p);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
>  	schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_count);
> 
> 
> 
> 




  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-06  2:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-29  2:42 [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod Eric Paris
2009-10-29  8:39 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29  9:14   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-29  9:19     ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 10:48       ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 12:41         ` Eric Paris
2009-11-02 18:28         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-02 19:40           ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-02 20:01             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-02 20:15               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 10:42             ` There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod) Lai Jiangshan
2009-11-05 14:13               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 14:30                 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 23:10                   ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06  2:31                     ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2009-11-06  4:27                       ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06  5:11                         ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06  4:46                       ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-02 18:55         ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Fix kthread_bind() by moving the body of kthread_bind() to sched.c tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2009-11-03  7:04         ` tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2009-11-26 17:09 ` [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod Leyendecker, Robert
2009-11-26 17:22   ` Peter Zijlstra

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=4AF38A72.9000900@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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.