From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:31:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF38A72.9000900@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257462632.6560.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> A bit of late night cut/paste fixed it right up, so tomorrow, I can redo
> benchmarks etc etc.
>
> Lai, mind giving this a try? I believe this will fix your problem as
> well as mine.
My problem: a bound task is run on a different cpu. You haven't describe
how does it happen, how do you think this patch will fix my problem?
>
> sched: fix runqueue locking buglet.
>
> Calling set_task_cpu() with the runqueue unlocked is unsafe. Add cpu_rq_lock()
> locking primitive, and lock the runqueue. Also, update rq->clock before calling
> set_task_cpu(), as it could be stale.
>
> Running netperf UDP_STREAM with two pinned tasks with tip 1b9508f applied emitted
> the thoroughly unbelievable result that ratelimiting newidle could produce twice
> the throughput of the virgin kernel. Reverting to locking the runqueue prior to
> runqueue selection restored benchmarking sanity, as finally did this patchlet.
>
[...]
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.32.git.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,32 @@ static struct rq *this_rq_lock(void)
> return rq;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * cpu_rq_lock - lock the runqueue a given task resides on and disable
> + * interrupts. Note the ordering: we can safely lookup the cpu_rq without
> + * explicitly disabling preemption.
> + */
> +static struct rq *cpu_rq_lock(int cpu, unsigned long *flags)
> + __acquires(rq->lock)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + local_irq_save(*flags);
> + rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> + if (likely(rq == cpu_rq(cpu)))
> + return rq;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static inline void cpu_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> + __releases(rq->lock)
> +{
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> +}
> +
The above code is totally garbage, cpu_rq(cpu) is constant.
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
> /*
> * Use HR-timers to deliver accurate preemption points.
> @@ -2345,13 +2371,12 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
> task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
>
> cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> - if (cpu != orig_cpu)
> - set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> -
> - rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> -
> - if (rq != orig_rq)
> + if (cpu != orig_cpu) {
> + rq = cpu_rq_lock(cpu, &flags);
> update_rq_clock(rq);
> + set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
Process p's runqueue may not have been locked.
> + } else
> + rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
>
> if (rq->idle_stamp) {
> u64 delta = rq->clock - rq->idle_stamp;
> @@ -2365,7 +2390,6 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
> }
>
> WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
> - cpu = task_cpu(p);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_count);
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-06 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-29 2:42 [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod Eric Paris
2009-10-29 8:39 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 9:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-29 9:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 10:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 12:41 ` Eric Paris
2009-11-02 18:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-02 19:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-02 20:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-02 20:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 10:42 ` There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod) Lai Jiangshan
2009-11-05 14:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 14:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-05 23:10 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06 2:31 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2009-11-06 4:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06 5:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-06 4:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-02 18:55 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Fix kthread_bind() by moving the body of kthread_bind() to sched.c tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2009-11-03 7:04 ` tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2009-11-26 17:09 ` [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod Leyendecker, Robert
2009-11-26 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4AF38A72.9000900@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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