linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 3/5] sched: migrate_dis/enable: Use rt_invol_sleep
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:47:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a2234884e55e5ee6df5f32f828a99c1b248933f.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190924152514.enzeuoo5a6o3mgqu@linutronix.de>

On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 17:25 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-24 08:53:43 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > As I pointed out in the "[PATCH RT 6/8] sched: migrate_enable: Set state
> > to
> > TASK_RUNNING" discussion, we can get here inside the rtmutex code (e.g.
> > from
> > debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock) where saved_state is already holding
> > something -- plus, the waker won't have WF_LOCK_SLEEPER and therefore
> > saved_state will get cleared anyway.
> 
> So let me drop the saved_state pieces and get back to it once I get to
> the other thread (which you replied and I didn't realised until now).
> 
> Regarding the WF_LOCK_SLEEPER part. I think this works as expected.
> Imagine:
> 
> CPU0						CPU1
> spin_lock();
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> …
> spin_unlock()
>  -> migrate_enable();
>    -> stop_one_cpu();				<-- A)
> other_func();					<-- B)
> schedule();
> 
> So. With only CPU0 we enter schedule() with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE because
> the state gets preserved with the change I added (which is expected).
> If CPU1 sends a wake_up() at A) then the saved_state gets overwritten
> and we enter schedule() with TASK_RUNNING. Same happens if it is sent at
> B) point which is outside of any migrate/spin lock related code. 
> 
> Was this clear or did I miss the point?

When the stop machine finishes it will do a wake_up_process() via
complete().  Since this does not pass WF_LOCK_SLEEPER, saved_state will be
cleared, and you'll have TASK_RUNNING when you get to other_func() and
schedule(), regardless of whether CPU1 sends wake_up() -- so this change
doesn't actually accomplish anything.

While as noted in the other thread I don't think these spurious wakeups are
a huge problem, we could avoid them by doing stop_one_cpu_nowait() and then
schedule() without messing with task state.  Since we're stopping our own
cpu, it should be guaranteed that the stopper has finished by the time we
exit schedule().

-Scott



  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-24 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-11 16:57 [PATCH RT v3 0/5] RCU fixes Scott Wood
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 1/5] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs Scott Wood
2019-09-12 22:09   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-17  7:44   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:06     ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 14:42       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 16:12         ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 16:41           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 2/5] sched: Rename sleeping_lock to rt_invol_sleep Scott Wood
2019-09-17  7:52   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 3/5] sched: migrate_dis/enable: Use rt_invol_sleep Scott Wood
2019-09-17  7:59   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:06     ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 16:59       ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 17:52         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 11:21           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 13:53             ` Scott Wood
2019-09-24 15:25               ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 15:47                 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2019-09-24 16:05                   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 16:35                     ` Scott Wood
2019-10-04 16:45                       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 4/5] rcu: Disable use_softirq on PREEMPT_RT Scott Wood
2019-09-12 21:38   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-12 22:19     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-17  9:31     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:08   ` Scott Wood
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 5/5] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT Scott Wood
2019-09-12 22:17   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-16 16:55     ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 10:07       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:36         ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 14:50           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 16:32             ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 16:25               ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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=1a2234884e55e5ee6df5f32f828a99c1b248933f.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=swood@redhat.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=williams@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).