Re: [PATCH v2 13/35] sched: allow runtime config for PREEMPT_AUTO

Ankur Arora
2024-06-09T00:47:18Z

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 08:11:41AM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 02:29:45AM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 05:34:59PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> >> >> Reuse sched_dynamic_update() and related logic to enable choosing
>> >> >> the preemption model at boot or runtime for PREEMPT_AUTO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The interface is identical to PREEMPT_DYNAMIC.
>> >> >
>> >> > Colour me confused, why?!? What are you doing and why aren't just just
>> >> > adding AUTO to the existing DYNAMIC thing?
>> >>
>> >> You mean have a single __sched_dynamic_update()? AUTO doesn't use any
>> >> of the static_call/static_key stuff so I'm not sure how that would work.
>> >
>> > *sigh*... see the below, seems to work.
>>
>> Sorry, didn't mean for you to have to do all that work to prove the
>> point.
>
> Well, for a large part it was needed for me to figure out what your
> patches were actually doing anyway. Peel away all the layers and this is
> what remains.
>
>> I phrased it badly. I do understand how lazy can be folded in as
>> you do here:
>>
>> > + case preempt_dynamic_lazy:
>> > + if (!klp_override)
>> > + preempt_dynamic_disable(cond_resched);
>> > + preempt_dynamic_disable(might_resched);
>> > + preempt_dynamic_enable(preempt_schedule);
>> > + preempt_dynamic_enable(preempt_schedule_notrace);
>> > + preempt_dynamic_enable(irqentry_exit_cond_resched);
>> > + preempt_dynamic_key_enable(preempt_lazy);
>> > + if (mode != preempt_dynamic_mode)
>> > + pr_info("Dynamic Preempt: lazy\n");
>> > + break;
>> > }
>>
>> But, if the long term goal (at least as I understand it) is to get rid
>> of cond_resched() -- to allow optimizations that needing to call cond_resched()
>> makes impossible -- does it make sense to pull all of these together?
>
> It certainly doesn't make sense to add yet another configurable thing. We
> have one, so yes add it here.
>
>> Say, eventually preempt_dynamic_lazy and preempt_dynamic_full are the
>> only two models left. Then we will have (modulo figuring out how to
>> switch over klp from cond_resched() to a different unwinding technique):
>>
>> static void __sched_dynamic_update(int mode)
>> {
>> preempt_dynamic_enable(preempt_schedule);
>> preempt_dynamic_enable(preempt_schedule_notrace);
>> preempt_dynamic_enable(irqentry_exit_cond_resched);
>>
>> switch (mode) {
>> case preempt_dynamic_full:
>> preempt_dynamic_key_disable(preempt_lazy);
>> if (mode != preempt_dynamic_mode)
>> pr_info("%s: full\n", PREEMPT_MODE);
>> break;
>>
>> case preempt_dynamic_lazy:
>> preempt_dynamic_key_enable(preempt_lazy);
>> if (mode != preempt_dynamic_mode)
>> pr_info("Dynamic Preempt: lazy\n");
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> preempt_dynamic_mode = mode;
>> }
>>
>> Which is pretty similar to what the PREEMPT_AUTO code was doing.
>
> Right, but without duplicating all that stuff in the interim.

Yeah, that makes sense. Joel had suggested something on these lines
earlier [1], to which I was resistant.

However, the duplication (and the fact that the voluntary model
was quite thin) should have told me that (AUTO, preempt=voluntary)
should just be folded under PREEMPT_DYNAMIC.

I'll rework the series to do that.

That should also simplify RCU related choices which I think Paul will
like. Given that the lazy model is meant to eventually replace
none/voluntary, so PREEMPT_RCU configuration can just be:

--- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ config TREE_RCU

config PREEMPT_RCU
bool
- default y if PREEMPTION
+ default y if PREEMPTION && !PREEMPT_LAZY

Or, maybe we should instead have this:

--- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ config TREE_RCU

config PREEMPT_RCU
bool
- default y if PREEMPTION
+ default y if PREEMPT || PREEMPT_RT
select TREE_RCU

Though this would be a change in behaviour for current PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
users.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fd48ea5c-bc74-4914-a621-d12c9741c014@joelfernandes.org/

Thanks
--
ankur