From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:39:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170405073943.GA17266@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170404184202.20376-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> In commit 4b53a3412d66 ("sched/core: Remove the tsk_nr_cpus_allowed()
> wrapper") the tsk_nr_cpus_allowed() wrapper was removed. There was not
> much difference in !RT but in RT we used this to implement
> migrate_disable(). Within a migrate_disable() section the CPU mask is
> restricted to single CPU while the "normal" CPU mask remains untouched.
>
> As an alternative implementation Ingo suggested to use
> struct task_struct {
> const cpumask_t *cpus_ptr;
> cpumask_t cpus_mask;
> };
> with
> t->cpus_allowed_ptr = &t->cpus_allowed;
>
> In -RT we then can switch the cpus_ptr to
> t->cpus_allowed_ptr = &cpumask_of(task_cpu(p));
>
> in a migration disabled region. The rules are simple:
> - Code that 'uses' ->cpus_allowed would use the pointer.
> - Code that 'modifies' ->cpus_allowed would use the direct mask.
>
> While converting the existing users I tried to stick with the rules
> above however… well mostly CPUFREQ tries to temporary switch the CPU
> mask to do something on a certain CPU and then switches the mask back it
> its original value. So in theory `cpus_ptr' could or should be used.
> However if this is invoked in a migration disabled region (which is not
> the case because it would require something like preempt_disable() and
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() might sleep so it can't be) then the "restore"
> part would restore the wrong mask. So it only looks strange and I go for
> the pointer…
So maybe we could add the following facility:
ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(cpu);
...
sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
... and use it in the cpufreq code. Then -rt could simply define migrate_disable()
to be:
ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(raw_smp_processor_id());
and define migrate_enable() as:
sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
... or such.
In the cpu == current_cpu case it would be super fast - otherwise it would migrate
over to the target CPU first. Also note that this facility is strictly a special
case for single-CPU masks and migrations - i.e. the constant pointer cpumask
optimization would always apply.
Note that due to the use of the 'ptr' local variable the interface nests
naturally, so this would be a legitimate use:
ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(cpu);
...
migrate_disable();
...
migrate_enable();
...
sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
I.e. my proposal would be to essentially upstream the -rt migrate_disable()
facility in a slightly more generic form that would fit the cpufreq usecase.
I bet a number of the current driver's mucking with cpumask would also fit this
new API.
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-05 7:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-04 18:42 [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-05 7:39 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-04-05 8:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 7:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 11:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-07 7:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-11 1:38 ` [lkp-robot] [kernel] c1f943ee40: kernel_BUG_at_kernel/smpboot.c kernel test robot
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=20170405073943.GA17266@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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