From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@meta.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
lclaudio00@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 22:14:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250728201441.GA4690@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aGvTz5VaPFyj0pBV@uudg.org>
On 07/07, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
>
> Instead of adding more complex conditions to decide when to directly
> call __put_task_struct() and when to defer the call, unconditionally
> resort to the deferred call on PREEMPT_RT to simplify the code.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Confused... with this patch put_task_struct() always uses the deferred
call, regardless of PREEMPT_RT?
Oleg.
> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> @@ -135,24 +135,17 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> return;
>
> /*
> - * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
> - * Under RT, we can only call it in preemptible context.
> - */
> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || preemptible()) {
> - static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(put_task_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> -
> - lock_map_acquire_try(&put_task_map);
> - __put_task_struct(t);
> - lock_map_release(&put_task_map);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> + * Under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call __put_task_struct
> * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> - * acquire sleeping locks.
> + * acquire sleeping locks. The same is true if the
> + * current process has a mutex enqueued (blocked on
> + * a PI chain).
> + *
> + * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
> + * Though, in order to simplify the code, resort to the
> + * deferred call too.
> *
> - * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> + * call_rcu() will schedule __put_task_struct_rcu_cb()
> * to be called in process context.
> *
> * __put_task_struct() is called when
> @@ -165,7 +158,7 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> *
> * delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
> * when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
> - * way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
> + * way it can conflict with __put_task_struct().
> */
> call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
> }
> --
> 2.50.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-28 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 14:03 [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-10 16:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-07-14 14:15 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-07-16 10:19 ` [tip: sched/core] sched: Do " tip-bot2 for Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-28 20:14 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-07-29 7:33 ` [PATCH v6] sched: do " Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 11:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-29 12:45 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 13:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:51 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-08-11 10:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 11:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:16 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 12:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20250728201441.GA4690@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=crwood@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dvernet@meta.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lclaudio00@gmail.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wander@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).