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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox