From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Ben Segall" <bsegall@google.com>, "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Valentin Schneider" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Qais Yousef" <qyousef@layalina.io>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
"Swapnil Sapkal" <swapnil.sapkal@amd.com>,
"Shrikanth Hegde" <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
"Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it,
"Jon Hunter" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched/topology: Wrappers for sched_domains_mutex
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:32:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8q9E6j6cMX3jTi8@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z8gs-but1oFcwEn0@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
On 05/03/25 10:52, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 04/03/25 11:01, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 3/4/25 10:05 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,19 @@
> > > > #include <linux/bsearch.h>
> > > > DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > +void sched_domains_mutex_lock(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > > > +}
> > > > +void sched_domains_mutex_unlock(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > > > +}
> > > > +#else
> > > > +void sched_domains_mutex_lock(void) { }
> > > > +void sched_domains_mutex_unlock(void) { }
> > > > +#endif
> > > > /* Protected by sched_domains_mutex: */
> > > > static cpumask_var_t sched_domains_tmpmask;
> > > > @@ -2791,7 +2804,7 @@ void partition_sched_domains_locked(int
> > > > ndoms_new, cpumask_var_t doms_new[],
> > > > void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_new, cpumask_var_t doms_new[],
> > > > struct sched_domain_attr *dattr_new)
> > > > {
> > > > - mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > > > + sched_domains_mutex_lock();
> > > > partition_sched_domains_locked(ndoms_new, doms_new, dattr_new);
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > > > + sched_domains_mutex_unlock();
> > > > }
> > >
> > > There are two "lockdep_assert_held(&sched_domains_mutex);" statements in
> > > topology.c file and one in cpuset.c. That can be problematic in the
> > > non-SMP case. Maybe another wrapper to do the assert?
> >
> > Ignore that as both topology.c and cpuset.c will only be compiled if
> > CONFIG_SMP is defined. IOW, you don't need the the "#ifdef CONFIG_SMP"
> > above.
>
> Indeed!
Ah, actually I believe next patch (3/5) introduce usage for the !SMP
case in sched_rt_handler()
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 4b8e33c615b1..8cebe71d2bb1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -2910,6 +2910,7 @@ static int sched_rt_handler(const struct ctl_table *table, int write, void *buff
int ret;
mutex_lock(&mutex);
+ sched_domains_mutex_lock();
old_period = sysctl_sched_rt_period;
old_runtime = sysctl_sched_rt_runtime;
@@ -2936,6 +2937,7 @@ static int sched_rt_handler(const struct ctl_table *table, int write, void *buff
sysctl_sched_rt_period = old_period;
sysctl_sched_rt_runtime = old_runtime;
}
+ sched_domains_mutex_unlock();
mutex_unlock(&mutex);
return ret;
So, I will need to add the ifdef back I guess (I removed it on v2). Do
you agree?
Thanks,
Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-07 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-04 8:40 [PATCH 0/5] Fix SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth accounting during suspend Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched/deadline: Ignore special tasks when rebuilding domains Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched/topology: Wrappers for sched_domains_mutex Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2025-03-04 15:57 ` Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 16:01 ` Waiman Long
2025-03-05 10:52 ` Juri Lelli
2025-03-07 9:32 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2025-03-07 14:49 ` Waiman Long
2025-03-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched/deadline: Generalize unique visiting of root domains Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched/deadline: Rebuild root domain accounting after every update Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 15:17 ` Waiman Long
2025-03-04 15:33 ` Waiman Long
2025-03-05 11:43 ` Juri Lelli
2025-03-05 11:20 ` Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched/topology: Remove redundant dl_clear_root_domain call Juri Lelli
2025-03-04 15:32 ` [PATCH 0/5] Fix SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth accounting during suspend Jon Hunter
2025-03-04 15:53 ` Juri Lelli
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=Z8q9E6j6cMX3jTi8@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
--to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=swapnil.sapkal@amd.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@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