public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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);
> 
> 
> 
> 




  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