From: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Connor O'Brien" <connoro@google.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 20/20] sched: Add deactivated (sleeping) owner handling to proxy()
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 19:35:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231106193524.866104-21-jstultz@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231106193524.866104-1-jstultz@google.com>
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Adds a implementation of (sleeping) deactivated owner handling
where we queue the selected task on the deactivated owner task
and deactivate it as well, re-activating it later when the owner
is woken up.
NOTE: This has been particularly challenging to get working
properly, and some of the locking is particularly ackward. I'd
very much appreciate review and feedback for ways to simplify
this.
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>
Cc: Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel-team@android.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>
[jstultz: This was broken out from the larger proxy() patch]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
---
v5:
* Split out from larger proxy patch
v6:
* Major rework, replacing the single list head per task with
per-task list head and nodes, creating a tree structure so
we only wake up decendents of the task woken.
* Reworked the locking to take the task->pi_lock, so we can
avoid mid-chain wakeup races from try_to_wake_up() called by
the ww_mutex logic.
---
include/linux/sched.h | 3 +
kernel/fork.c | 4 +-
kernel/sched/core.c | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
3 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 9bff2f123207..c5aa0208104f 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1148,6 +1148,9 @@ struct task_struct {
struct task_struct *blocked_donor; /* task that is boosting us */
struct mutex *blocked_on; /* lock we're blocked on */
bool blocked_on_waking; /* blocked on, but waking */
+ struct list_head blocked_head; /* tasks blocked on us */
+ struct list_head blocked_node; /* our entry on someone elses blocked_head */
+ struct task_struct *sleeping_owner; /* task our blocked_node is enqueued on */
raw_spinlock_t blocked_lock;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 6604e0472da0..bbcf2697652f 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -2459,7 +2459,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
p->blocked_donor = NULL; /* nobody is boosting us yet */
p->blocked_on = NULL; /* not blocked yet */
p->blocked_on_waking = false; /* not blocked yet */
-
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->blocked_head);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->blocked_node);
+ p->sleeping_owner = NULL;
#ifdef CONFIG_BCACHE
p->sequential_io = 0;
p->sequential_io_avg = 0;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 6ac7a241dacc..8f87318784d0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3804,6 +3804,119 @@ static inline void ttwu_do_wakeup(struct task_struct *p)
trace_sched_wakeup(p);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROXY_EXEC
+static void do_activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int en_flags)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
+
+ if (!sched_proxy_exec()) {
+ activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (p->sleeping_owner) {
+ struct task_struct *owner = p->sleeping_owner;
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ list_del_init(&p->blocked_node);
+ p->sleeping_owner = NULL;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * By calling activate_task with blocked_lock held, we order against
+ * the proxy() blocked_task case such that no more blocked tasks will
+ * be enqueued on p once we release p->blocked_lock.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock(&p->blocked_lock);
+ WARN_ON(task_cpu(p) != cpu_of(rq));
+ activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&p->blocked_lock);
+}
+
+static void activate_blocked_ents(struct rq *target_rq,
+ struct task_struct *owner,
+ int wake_flags)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct rq_flags rf;
+ int target_cpu = cpu_of(target_rq);
+ int en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
+
+ if (wake_flags & WF_MIGRATED)
+ en_flags |= ENQUEUE_MIGRATED;
+ /*
+ * A whole bunch of 'proxy' tasks back this blocked task, wake
+ * them all up to give this task its 'fair' share.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ while (!list_empty(&owner->blocked_head)) {
+ struct task_struct *pp;
+ unsigned int state;
+
+ pp = list_first_entry(&owner->blocked_head,
+ struct task_struct,
+ blocked_node);
+ BUG_ON(pp == owner);
+ list_del_init(&pp->blocked_node);
+ WARN_ON(!pp->sleeping_owner);
+ pp->sleeping_owner = NULL;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+
+ /* Nested as ttwu holds the owner's pi_lock */
+ /* XXX But how do we enforce ordering to avoid ABBA? */
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&pp->pi_lock, flags, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+ smp_rmb();
+ state = READ_ONCE(pp->__state);
+ /* Avoid racing with ttwu */
+ if (state == TASK_WAKING) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->pi_lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ continue;
+ }
+ if (READ_ONCE(pp->on_rq)) {
+ /*
+ * We raced with a non mutex handoff activation of pp.
+ * That activation will also take care of activating
+ * all of the tasks after pp in the blocked_entry list,
+ * so we're done here.
+ */
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->pi_lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ __set_task_cpu(pp, target_cpu);
+
+ rq_lock_irqsave(target_rq, &rf);
+ update_rq_clock(target_rq);
+ do_activate_task(target_rq, pp, en_flags);
+ resched_curr(target_rq);
+ rq_unlock_irqrestore(target_rq, &rf);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->pi_lock, flags);
+
+ /* recurse */
+ activate_blocked_ents(target_rq, pp, wake_flags);
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+}
+
+#else
+static inline void do_activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
+ int en_flags)
+{
+ activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+}
+
+static inline void activate_blocked_ents(struct rq *target_rq,
+ struct task_struct *owner,
+ int wake_flags)
+{
+}
+#endif
+
static void
ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
struct rq_flags *rf)
@@ -3825,7 +3938,8 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
atomic_dec(&task_rq(p)->nr_iowait);
}
- activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+ do_activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+
check_preempt_curr(rq, p, wake_flags);
ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
@@ -3922,13 +4036,19 @@ void sched_ttwu_pending(void *arg)
update_rq_clock(rq);
llist_for_each_entry_safe(p, t, llist, wake_entry.llist) {
+ int wake_flags;
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(p->on_cpu))
smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL);
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(task_cpu(p) != cpu_of(rq)))
set_task_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq));
- ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, p->sched_remote_wakeup ? WF_MIGRATED : 0, &rf);
+ wake_flags = p->sched_remote_wakeup ? WF_MIGRATED : 0;
+ ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, wake_flags, &rf);
+ rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
+ activate_blocked_ents(rq, p, wake_flags);
+ rq_lock(rq, &rf);
+ update_rq_clock(rq);
}
/*
@@ -4069,6 +4189,15 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
update_rq_clock(rq);
ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, wake_flags, &rf);
rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
+
+ /*
+ * When activating blocked ents, we will take the entities
+ * pi_lock, so drop the owners. Would love suggestions for
+ * a better approach.
+ */
+ raw_spin_unlock(&p->pi_lock);
+ activate_blocked_ents(rq, p, wake_flags);
+ raw_spin_lock(&p->pi_lock);
}
/*
@@ -6778,6 +6907,31 @@ static inline bool proxy_return_migration(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf,
return false;
}
+static void proxy_enqueue_on_owner(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *owner,
+ struct task_struct *next)
+{
+ /*
+ * ttwu_activate() will pick them up and place them on whatever rq
+ * @owner will run next.
+ */
+ if (!owner->on_rq) {
+ BUG_ON(!next->on_rq);
+ deactivate_task(rq, next, DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
+ if (task_current_selected(rq, next)) {
+ put_prev_task(rq, next);
+ rq_set_selected(rq, rq->idle);
+ }
+ /*
+ * ttwu_do_activate must not have a chance to activate p
+ * elsewhere before it's fully extricated from its old rq.
+ */
+ WARN_ON(next->sleeping_owner);
+ next->sleeping_owner = owner;
+ smp_mb();
+ list_add(&next->blocked_node, &owner->blocked_head);
+ }
+}
+
/*
* Find who @next (currently blocked on a mutex) can proxy for.
*
@@ -6807,7 +6961,6 @@ static inline bool proxy_return_migration(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf,
static struct task_struct *
proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
- struct task_struct *ret = NULL;
struct task_struct *p = next;
struct task_struct *owner = NULL;
bool curr_in_chain = false;
@@ -6886,12 +7039,41 @@ proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
}
if (!owner->on_rq) {
- /* XXX Don't handle blocked owners yet */
- if (!proxy_deactivate(rq, next))
- ret = next;
- raw_spin_unlock(&p->blocked_lock);
+ /*
+ * rq->curr must not be added to the blocked_head list or else
+ * ttwu_do_activate could enqueue it elsewhere before it switches
+ * out here. The approach to avoiding this is the same as in the
+ * migrate_task case.
+ */
+ if (curr_in_chain) {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&p->blocked_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&mutex->wait_lock);
+ return proxy_resched_idle(rq, next);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * If !@owner->on_rq, holding @rq->lock will not pin the task,
+ * so we cannot drop @mutex->wait_lock until we're sure its a blocked
+ * task on this rq.
+ *
+ * We use @owner->blocked_lock to serialize against ttwu_activate().
+ * Either we see its new owner->on_rq or it will see our list_add().
+ */
+ if (owner != p) {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&p->blocked_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->blocked_lock);
+ }
+
+ proxy_enqueue_on_owner(rq, owner, next);
+
+ if (task_current_selected(rq, next)) {
+ put_prev_task(rq, next);
+ rq_set_selected(rq, rq->idle);
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock(&owner->blocked_lock);
raw_spin_unlock(&mutex->wait_lock);
- return ret;
+
+ return NULL; /* retry task selection */
}
if (owner == p) {
--
2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-06 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-06 19:34 [PATCH v6 00/20] Proxy Execution: A generalized form of Priority Inheritance v6 John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 01/20] sched: Unify runtime accounting across classes John Stultz
2023-12-17 16:19 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-18 20:23 ` John Stultz
2023-12-28 16:21 ` Qais Yousef
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 02/20] locking/mutex: Removes wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 03/20] locking/mutex: make mutex::wait_lock irq safe John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 04/20] locking/mutex: Expose __mutex_owner() John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 05/20] locking/mutex: Rework task_struct::blocked_on John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 06/20] locking/mutex: Add task_struct::blocked_lock to serialize changes to the blocked_on state John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 07/20] locking/mutex: Add p->blocked_on wrappers for correctness checks John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 08/20] sched: Add CONFIG_PROXY_EXEC & boot argument to enable/disable John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 09/20] locking/mutex: Split blocked_on logic into two states (blocked_on and blocked_on_waking) John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 10/20] locking/mutex: Switch to mutex handoffs for CONFIG_PROXY_EXEC John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 11/20] sched: Split scheduler execution context John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 12/20] sched: Fix runtime accounting w/ split exec & sched contexts John Stultz
2023-11-11 11:26 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 13/20] sched: Split out __sched() deactivate task logic into a helper John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 14/20] sched: Add a very simple proxy() function John Stultz
2023-11-11 13:32 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 15/20] sched: Add proxy deactivate helper John Stultz
2023-11-08 2:51 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-18 0:27 ` John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v6 16/20] sched: Fix proxy/current (push,pull)ability John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:35 ` [PATCH v6 17/20] sched: Start blocked_on chain processing in proxy() John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:35 ` [PATCH v6 18/20] sched: Handle blocked-waiter migration (and return migration) John Stultz
2023-11-09 5:31 ` Xuewen Yan
2023-11-09 6:08 ` John Stultz
2023-11-09 6:38 ` Xuewen Yan
2023-11-10 3:45 ` John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:35 ` [PATCH v6 19/20] sched: Add blocked_donor link to task for smarter mutex handoffs John Stultz
2023-11-06 19:35 ` John Stultz [this message]
[not found] ` <20231108111458.1368-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-11-08 22:13 ` [PATCH v6 00/20] Proxy Execution: A generalized form of Priority Inheritance v6 John Stultz
2023-11-10 9:07 ` Xuewen Yan
2023-12-13 6:37 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-12-13 16:20 ` Metin Kaya
2023-12-13 19:11 ` John Stultz
2023-12-14 5:15 ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-12-14 1:00 ` John Stultz
2023-12-14 1:03 ` John Stultz
2023-12-17 3:07 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-18 23:38 ` John Stultz
2023-12-28 16:45 ` Qais Yousef
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=20231106193524.866104-21-jstultz@google.com \
--to=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=connoro@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=youssefesmat@google.com \
--cc=zezeozue@google.com \
/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