public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
	vschneid@redhat.com, youssefesmat@google.com, joelaf@google.com,
	roman.gushchin@linux.dev, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
	kprateek.nayak@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
	aboorvad@linux.vnet.ibm.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com,
	tj@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/8] sched: Tighten unpinned rq lock window in newidle_balance()
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:31:36 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231212003141.216236-4-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231212003141.216236-1-void@manifault.com>

In newidle_balance(), we may drop and reacquire the rq lock in the
load-balance phase of the function. We currently do this before we check
rq->rd->overload or rq->avg_idle, which is unnecessary. Let's tighten
the window where we call rq_unpin_lock().

Suggested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index bcea3d55d95d..e1b676bb1fed 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -12296,14 +12296,6 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	if (!cpu_active(this_cpu))
 		return 0;
 
-	/*
-	 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being picked
-	 * for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still disabled avoiding
-	 * further scheduler activity on it and we're being very careful to
-	 * re-start the picking loop.
-	 */
-	rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
-
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
 
@@ -12318,6 +12310,13 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
+	/*
+	 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being picked
+	 * for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still disabled avoiding
+	 * further scheduler activity on it and we're being very careful to
+	 * re-start the picking loop.
+	 */
+	rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
 	raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq);
 
 	t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
@@ -12358,6 +12357,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	raw_spin_rq_lock(this_rq);
+	rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
 
 	if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost)
 		this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost;
@@ -12384,8 +12384,6 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	else
 		nohz_newidle_balance(this_rq);
 
-	rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
-
 	return pulled_task;
 }
 
-- 
2.42.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-12-12  0:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-12  0:31 [PATCH v4 0/8] sched: Implement shared runqueue in fair.c David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] sched: Expose move_queued_task() from core.c David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] sched: Move is_cpu_allowed() into sched.h David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` David Vernet [this message]
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] sched: Check cpu_active() earlier in newidle_balance() David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] sched: Enable sched_feat callbacks on enable/disable David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] sched: Implement shared runqueue in fair.c David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] sched: Shard per-LLC shared runqueues David Vernet
2023-12-12  0:31 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] sched: Add selftest for SHARED_RUNQ David Vernet
2024-04-17  8:48 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] sched: Implement shared runqueue in fair.c K Prateek Nayak

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=20231212003141.216236-4-void@manifault.com \
    --to=void@manifault.com \
    --cc=aboorvad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
    --cc=youssefesmat@google.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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