public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Vincent Donnefort <Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com>,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix detection of per-CPU kthreads waking a task
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:49:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pmqmc16f.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtC4iXXaptm9+2bHvX2E3xAWU4M3xN0ZuwpFQ1RyXAyxyA@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/11/21 15:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:32, Valentin Schneider
> <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>>         /*
>> -        * Allow a per-cpu kthread to stack with the wakee if the
>> -        * kworker thread and the tasks previous CPUs are the same.
>> -        * The assumption is that the wakee queued work for the
>> -        * per-cpu kthread that is now complete and the wakeup is
>> -        * essentially a sync wakeup. An obvious example of this
>> +        * Allow a per-cpu kthread to stack with the wakee if the kworker thread
>> +        * and the tasks previous CPUs are the same.  The assumption is that the
>> +        * wakee queued work for the per-cpu kthread that is now complete and
>> +        * the wakeup is essentially a sync wakeup. An obvious example of this
>>          * pattern is IO completions.
>> +        *
>> +        * Ensure the wakeup is issued by the kthread itself, and don't match
>> +        * against the idle task because that could override the
>> +        * available_idle_cpu(target) check done higher up.
>>          */
>> -       if (is_per_cpu_kthread(current) &&
>> +       if (is_per_cpu_kthread(current) && !is_idle_task(current) &&
>
> still i don't see the need of !is_idle_task(current)
>

Admittedly, belts and braces. The existing condition checks rq->nr_running <= 1
which can lead to coscheduling when the wakeup is issued by the idle task
(or even if rq->nr_running == 0, you can have rq->ttwu_pending without
having sent an IPI due to polling). Essentially this overrides the first
check in sis() that uses idle_cpu(target) (prev == smp_processor_id() ==
target).

I couldn't prove such wakeups can happen right now, but if/when they do
(AIUI it would just take someone to add a wake_up_process() down some
smp_call_function() callback) then we'll need the above. If you're still
not convinced by now, I won't push it further.

>
>> +           in_task() &&
>>             prev == smp_processor_id() &&
>>             this_rq()->nr_running <= 1) {
>>                 return prev;
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-26 16:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-24 15:42 [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix detection of per-CPU kthreads waking a task Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-24 16:28 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-25  9:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-25 11:16   ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-25 13:17     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-11-25 13:23     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-25 15:30       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-26  8:23         ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-26 13:32           ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-26 14:40             ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-26 16:49               ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-11-26 17:18                 ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-29 15:49                   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-29 16:54                     ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-30 13:35                       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-11-30 15:42                       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-01 14:40                         ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-12-01 16:19                           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-29  8:36 ` [sched/fair] 8d0920b981: stress-ng.sem.ops_per_sec 11.9% improvement kernel test robot

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=87pmqmc16f.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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