public inbox for linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	kernel@quicinc.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Prakash Viswalingam <quic_prakashv@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] freezer,sched: Use saved_state to reduce some spurious wakeups
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:46:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230907094651.GB16872@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df61af06-a43e-05c5-66e8-5a68b08ff14b@quicinc.com>

On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:59:03PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2023 2:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:42:39AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > 
> > > Avoid the spurious wakeups by saving the state of TASK_FREEZABLE tasks.
> > > If the task was running before entering TASK_FROZEN state
> > > (__refrigerator()) or if the task received a wake up for the saved
> > > state, then the task is woken on thaw. saved_state from PREEMPT_RT locks
> > > can be re-used because freezer would not stomp on the rtlock wait flow:
> > > TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT isn't considered freezable.
> > 
> > You don't actually assert that anywhere I think, so the moment someone
> > makes that happen you crash and burn.
> > 
> 
> I can certainly add an assertion on the freezer side.

I think the assertion we have in ttwu_state_match() might be sufficient.

> > Also:
> > 
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FREEZER)
> > 
> > That makes wakeup more horrible for everyone :/
> 
> I don't think the hot wakeup path is significantly impacted because the
> added checks come after the hot path is already not taken.

Perhaps we should start off by doing the below, instead of making it
more complicated instead. I suppose you're right about the overhead, but
run a hackbench just to make sure or something.


diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 77f01ac385f7..649ddb9adf0d 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -749,11 +749,7 @@ struct task_struct {
 	struct thread_info		thread_info;
 #endif
 	unsigned int			__state;
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
-	/* saved state for "spinlock sleepers" */
 	unsigned int			saved_state;
-#endif
 
 	/*
 	 * This begins the randomizable portion of task_struct. Only
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 2299a5cfbfb9..b566821614e1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2239,31 +2239,21 @@ int __task_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state)
 	if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) & state)
 		return 1;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
 	if (READ_ONCE(p->saved_state) & state)
 		return -1;
-#endif
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static __always_inline
 int task_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state)
 {
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
-	int match;
-
 	/*
 	 * Serialize against current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() and
 	 * current_restore_rtlock_saved_state().
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
-	match = __task_state_match(p, state);
-	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
-
-	return match;
-#else
+	guard(spin_lock_irq)(&p->pi_lock);
 	return __task_state_match(p, state);
-#endif
 }
 
 /*
@@ -4056,7 +4046,6 @@ bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int *success)
 
 	*success = !!(match = __task_state_match(p, state));
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
 	/*
 	 * Saved state preserves the task state across blocking on
 	 * an RT lock.  If the state matches, set p::saved_state to
@@ -4072,7 +4061,7 @@ bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int *success)
 	 */
 	if (match < 0)
 		p->saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
-#endif
+
 	return match > 0;
 }
 

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-07 15:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-30 17:42 [PATCH v2] freezer,sched: Use saved_state to reduce some spurious wakeups Elliot Berman
2023-09-04 21:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-05  3:59   ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-07  9:46     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-09-08 20:08       ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:08         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 22:30           ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-08 22:48             ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 23:17               ` Elliot Berman
2023-09-09  9:29                 ` 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=20230907094651.GB16872@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=kernel@quicinc.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=quic_eberman@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_prakashv@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox