From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kprateek.nayak@amd.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com,
youssefesmat@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:18:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241010091843.GK33184@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241010081940.GC17263@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:19:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 07:49:54PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> > TL;DR: Code that checks task_struct.on_rq may be broken by this commit.
>
> Correct, and while I did look at quite a few, I did miss KVM used it,
> damn.
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > Any thoughts on how best to handle this? The below hack-a-fix resolves the issue,
> > but it's obviously not appropriate. KVM uses vcpu->preempted for more than just
> > posted interrupts, so KVM needs equivalent functionality to current->on-rq as it
> > was before this commit.
> >
> > @@ -6387,7 +6390,7 @@ static void kvm_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,
> >
> > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->scheduled_out, true);
> >
> > - if (current->on_rq && vcpu->wants_to_run) {
> > + if (se_runnable(¤t->se) && vcpu->wants_to_run) {
> > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->preempted, true);
> > WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true);
> > }
>
> se_runnable() isn't quite right, but yes, a helper along those lines is
> probably best. Let me try and grep more to see if there's others I
> missed as well :/
How's the below? I remember looking at the freezer thing before and
deciding it isn't a correctness thing, but given I added the helper, I
changed it anyway. I've added a bunch of comments and the perf thing is
similar to KVM, it wants to know about preemptions so that had to change
too.
---
include/linux/sched.h | 5 +++++
kernel/events/core.c | 2 +-
kernel/freezer.c | 7 ++++++-
kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 9 +++++++++
kernel/sched/core.c | 12 +++++++++---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 5 +++++
kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c | 2 +-
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
8 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 0053f0664847..2b1f454e4575 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -2134,6 +2134,11 @@ static inline void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
+static inline bool task_is_runnable(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->on_rq && !p->se.sched_delayed;
+}
+
extern bool sched_task_on_rq(struct task_struct *p);
extern unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
extern struct task_struct *cpu_curr_snapshot(int cpu);
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index e3589c4287cb..cdd09769e6c5 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -9251,7 +9251,7 @@ static void perf_event_switch(struct task_struct *task,
},
};
- if (!sched_in && task->on_rq) {
+ if (!sched_in && task_is_runnable(task)) {
switch_event.event_id.header.misc |=
PERF_RECORD_MISC_SWITCH_OUT_PREEMPT;
}
diff --git a/kernel/freezer.c b/kernel/freezer.c
index 44bbd7dbd2c8..8d530d0949ff 100644
--- a/kernel/freezer.c
+++ b/kernel/freezer.c
@@ -109,7 +109,12 @@ static int __set_task_frozen(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
{
unsigned int state = READ_ONCE(p->__state);
- if (p->on_rq)
+ /*
+ * Allow freezing the sched_delayed tasks; they will not execute until
+ * ttwu() fixes them up, so it is safe to swap their state now, instead
+ * of waiting for them to get fully dequeued.
+ */
+ if (task_is_runnable(p))
return 0;
if (p != current && task_curr(p))
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index 6333f4ccf024..4d7ee95df06e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -985,6 +985,15 @@ static bool rcu_tasks_is_holdout(struct task_struct *t)
if (!READ_ONCE(t->on_rq))
return false;
+ /*
+ * t->on_rq && !t->se.sched_delayed *could* be considered sleeping but
+ * since it is a spurious state (it will transition into the
+ * traditional blocked state or get woken up without outside
+ * dependencies), not considering it such should only affect timing.
+ *
+ * Be conservative for now and not include it.
+ */
+
/*
* Idle tasks (or idle injection) within the idle loop are RCU-tasks
* quiescent states. But CPU boot code performed by the idle task
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0bacc5cd3693..be5c04eb5ba0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -548,6 +548,11 @@ sched_core_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags) { }
* ON_RQ_MIGRATING state is used for migration without holding both
* rq->locks. It indicates task_cpu() is not stable, see task_rq_lock().
*
+ * Additionally it is possible to be ->on_rq but still be considered not
+ * runnable when p->se.sched_delayed is true. These tasks are on the runqueue
+ * but will be dequeued as soon as they get picked again. See the
+ * task_is_runnable() helper.
+ *
* p->on_cpu <- { 0, 1 }:
*
* is set by prepare_task() and cleared by finish_task() such that it will be
@@ -4358,9 +4363,10 @@ static bool __task_needs_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
* @arg: Argument to function.
*
* Fix the task in it's current state by avoiding wakeups and or rq operations
- * and call @func(@arg) on it. This function can use ->on_rq and task_curr()
- * to work out what the state is, if required. Given that @func can be invoked
- * with a runqueue lock held, it had better be quite lightweight.
+ * and call @func(@arg) on it. This function can use task_is_runnable() and
+ * task_curr() to work out what the state is, if required. Given that @func
+ * can be invoked with a runqueue lock held, it had better be quite
+ * lightweight.
*
* Returns:
* Whatever @func returns
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index 753a184c7090..59efa14ce185 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -435,6 +435,11 @@ static void tick_nohz_kick_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
* tick_nohz_task_switch()
* LOAD p->tick_dep_mask
*/
+ // XXX given a task picks up the dependency on schedule(), should we
+ // only care about tasks that are currently on the CPU instead of all
+ // that are on the runqueue?
+ //
+ // That is, does this want to be: task_on_cpu() / task_curr()?
if (!sched_task_on_rq(tsk))
return;
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
index c4ad7cd7e778..1469dd8075fa 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
@@ -1485,7 +1485,7 @@ trace_selftest_startup_wakeup(struct tracer *trace, struct trace_array *tr)
/* reset the max latency */
tr->max_latency = 0;
- while (p->on_rq) {
+ while (task_is_runnable(p)) {
/*
* Sleep to make sure the -deadline thread is asleep too.
* On virtual machines we can't rely on timings,
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 05cbb2548d99..0c666f1870af 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -6387,7 +6387,7 @@ static void kvm_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,
WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->scheduled_out, true);
- if (current->on_rq && vcpu->wants_to_run) {
+ if (task_is_runnable(current) && vcpu->wants_to_run) {
WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->preempted, true);
WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-10 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20240727102732.960974693@infradead.org>
[not found] ` <20240727105030.226163742@infradead.org>
[not found] ` <CGME20240828223802eucas1p16755f4531ed0611dc4871649746ea774@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
[not found] ` <5618d029-769a-4690-a581-2df8939f26a9@samsung.com>
2024-10-10 2:49 ` [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue Sean Christopherson
2024-10-10 7:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2024-10-10 16:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-10 17:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2024-10-10 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 9:18 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2024-10-10 18:23 ` Sean Christopherson
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=20241010091843.GK33184@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
--cc=youssefesmat@chromium.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox