From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755442Ab0LQR5g (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:57:36 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51059 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755384Ab0LQR5e (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:57:34 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:50:13 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention
Message-ID: <20101217175013.GB8997@redhat.com>
References: <20101216145602.899838254@chello.nl> <20101216150920.968046926@chello.nl> <20101216184229.GA15889@redhat.com> <1292525893.2708.50.camel@laptop> <1292526220.2708.55.camel@laptop> <1292528874.2708.85.camel@laptop> <1292531553.2708.89.camel@laptop> <20101217165414.GA8997@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101217165414.GA8997@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 12/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > +	if (p->se.on_rq && ttwu_force(p, state, wake_flags))
> > +		return 1;
>
> 	----- WINDOW -----
>
> > +	for (;;) {
> > +		unsigned int task_state = p->state;
> > +
> > +		if (!(task_state & state))
> > +			goto out;
> > +
> > +		load = task_contributes_to_load(p);
> > +
> > +		if (cmpxchg(&p->state, task_state, TASK_WAKING) == task_state)
> > +			break;
>
> Suppose that we have a task T sleeping in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state,
> and this cpu does try_to_wake_up(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE). on_rq == false.
> try_to_wake_up() starts the "for (;;)" loop.
>
> However, in the WINDOW above, it is possible that somebody else wakes
> it up, and then this task changes its state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE again.
>
> Then we set ->state = TASK_WAKING, but this (still running) T restores
> TASK_RUNNING after us.

Even simpler. This can race with, say, __migrate_task() which does
deactivate_task + activate_task and temporary clears on_rq. Although
this is simple to fix, I think.



Also. Afaics, without rq->lock, we can't trust "while (p->oncpu)", at
least we need rmb() after that.

Interestingly, I can't really understand the current meaning of smp_wmb()
in finish_lock_switch(). Do you know what exactly is buys? In any case,
task_running() (or its callers) do not have the corresponding rmb().
Say, currently try_to_wake_up()->task_waking() can miss all changes
starting from prepare_lock_switch(). Hopefully this is OK, but I am
confused ;)

Oleg.