linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com,
	tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
	fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 08/16] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:56:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190218173514.359026684@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20190218165620.383905466@infradead.org

Avoid the RETRY_TASK case in the pick_next_task() slow path.

By doing the put_prev_task() early, we get the rt/deadline pull done,
and by testing rq->nr_running we know if we need newidle_balance().

This then gives a stable state to pick a task from.

Since the fast-path is fair only; it means the other classes will
always have pick_next_task(.prev=NULL, .rf=NULL) and we can simplify.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c      |   19 ++++++++++++-------
 kernel/sched/deadline.c  |   30 ++----------------------------
 kernel/sched/fair.c      |    9 ++++++---
 kernel/sched/idle.c      |    4 +++-
 kernel/sched/rt.c        |   29 +----------------------------
 kernel/sched/sched.h     |   13 ++++++++-----
 kernel/sched/stop_task.c |    3 ++-
 7 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3360,7 +3360,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
 
 		p = fair_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev, rf);
 		if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
-			goto again;
+			goto restart;
 
 		/* Assumes fair_sched_class->next == idle_sched_class */
 		if (unlikely(!p))
@@ -3369,14 +3369,19 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
 		return p;
 	}
 
-again:
+restart:
+	/*
+	 * Ensure that we put DL/RT tasks before the pick loop, such that they
+	 * can PULL higher prio tasks when we lower the RQ 'priority'.
+	 */
+	prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf);
+	if (!rq->nr_running)
+		newidle_balance(rq, rf);
+
 	for_each_class(class) {
-		p = class->pick_next_task(rq, prev, rf);
-		if (p) {
-			if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
-				goto again;
+		p = class->pick_next_task(rq, NULL, NULL);
+		if (p)
 			return p;
-		}
 	}
 
 	/* The idle class should always have a runnable task: */
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1730,39 +1730,13 @@ pick_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct
 	struct task_struct *p;
 	struct dl_rq *dl_rq;
 
-	dl_rq = &rq->dl;
-
-	if (need_pull_dl_task(rq, prev)) {
-		/*
-		 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being
-		 * picked for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still
-		 * disabled avoiding further scheduler activity on it and we're
-		 * being very careful to re-start the picking loop.
-		 */
-		rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
-		pull_dl_task(rq);
-		rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
-		/*
-		 * pull_dl_task() can drop (and re-acquire) rq->lock; this
-		 * means a stop task can slip in, in which case we need to
-		 * re-start task selection.
-		 */
-		if (rq->stop && task_on_rq_queued(rq->stop))
-			return RETRY_TASK;
-	}
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prev || rf);
 
-	/*
-	 * When prev is DL, we may throttle it in put_prev_task().
-	 * So, we update time before we check for dl_nr_running.
-	 */
-	if (prev->sched_class == &dl_sched_class)
-		update_curr_dl(rq);
+	dl_rq = &rq->dl;
 
 	if (unlikely(!dl_rq->dl_nr_running))
 		return NULL;
 
-	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
-
 	dl_se = pick_next_dl_entity(rq, dl_rq);
 	BUG_ON(!dl_se);
 
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6949,7 +6949,7 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struc
 		goto idle;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
-	if (prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
+	if (!prev || prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
 		goto simple;
 
 	/*
@@ -7026,8 +7026,8 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struc
 	goto done;
 simple:
 #endif
-
-	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
+	if (prev)
+		put_prev_task(rq, prev);
 
 	do {
 		se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, NULL);
@@ -7055,6 +7055,9 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
 	return p;
 
 idle:
+	if (!rf)
+		return NULL;
+
 	new_tasks = newidle_balance(rq, rf);
 
 	/*
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -388,7 +388,9 @@ pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struc
 {
 	struct task_struct *next = rq->idle;
 
-	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
+	if (prev)
+		put_prev_task(rq, prev);
+
 	set_next_task_idle(rq, next);
 
 	return next;
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1554,38 +1554,11 @@ pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct
 	struct task_struct *p;
 	struct rt_rq *rt_rq = &rq->rt;
 
-	if (need_pull_rt_task(rq, prev)) {
-		/*
-		 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being
-		 * picked for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still
-		 * disabled avoiding further scheduler activity on it and we're
-		 * being very careful to re-start the picking loop.
-		 */
-		rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
-		pull_rt_task(rq);
-		rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
-		/*
-		 * pull_rt_task() can drop (and re-acquire) rq->lock; this
-		 * means a dl or stop task can slip in, in which case we need
-		 * to re-start task selection.
-		 */
-		if (unlikely((rq->stop && task_on_rq_queued(rq->stop)) ||
-			     rq->dl.dl_nr_running))
-			return RETRY_TASK;
-	}
-
-	/*
-	 * We may dequeue prev's rt_rq in put_prev_task().
-	 * So, we update time before rt_queued check.
-	 */
-	if (prev->sched_class == &rt_sched_class)
-		update_curr_rt(rq);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prev || rf);
 
 	if (!rt_rq->rt_queued)
 		return NULL;
 
-	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
-
 	p = _pick_next_task_rt(rq);
 
 	set_next_task_rt(rq, p);
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1665,12 +1665,15 @@ struct sched_class {
 	void (*check_preempt_curr)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
 
 	/*
-	 * It is the responsibility of the pick_next_task() method that will
-	 * return the next task to call put_prev_task() on the @prev task or
-	 * something equivalent.
+	 * Both @prev and @rf are optional and may be NULL, in which case the
+	 * caller must already have invoked put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf).
 	 *
-	 * May return RETRY_TASK when it finds a higher prio class has runnable
-	 * tasks.
+	 * Otherwise it is the responsibility of the pick_next_task() to call
+	 * put_prev_task() on the @prev task or something equivalent, IFF it
+	 * returns a next task.
+	 *
+	 * In that case (@rf != NULL) it may return RETRY_TASK when it finds a
+	 * higher prio class has runnable tasks.
 	 */
 	struct task_struct * (*pick_next_task)(struct rq *rq,
 					       struct task_struct *prev,
--- a/kernel/sched/stop_task.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/stop_task.c
@@ -33,10 +33,11 @@ pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq, struc
 {
 	struct task_struct *stop = rq->stop;
 
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prev || rf);
+
 	if (!stop || !task_on_rq_queued(stop))
 		return NULL;
 
-	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
 	set_next_task_stop(rq, stop);
 
 	return stop;



  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-02-18 17:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-18 16:56 [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/16] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/16] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:13   ` Phil Auld
2019-02-19 16:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:37       ` Phil Auld
2019-03-18 15:41   ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-20  2:29     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-21 21:20       ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-22 13:34         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 20:59           ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-23  0:06         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-27  1:02           ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-29 13:35           ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-29 22:23             ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-01 21:35               ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-03 20:16                 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-05  1:30                   ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-02  7:42               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 23:28       ` Tim Chen
2019-03-22 23:44         ` Tim Chen
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/16] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/16] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/16] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/16] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/16] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]   ` <20190402064612.GA46500@aaronlu>
2019-04-02  8:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-02 13:20       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-05 14:55       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:09         ` Tim Chen
2019-04-10  4:36           ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:18             ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-11  2:11               ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:44             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11  3:05               ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-11  9:19                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10  8:06           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 19:58             ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-15 16:59             ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-16 13:43       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:38   ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-10 15:01     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11  0:11     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-19  8:40       ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-19 23:16         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:19   ` Valentin Schneider
2019-02-21 16:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:28         ` Valentin Schneider
2019-04-04  8:31       ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-06  1:36         ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/16] sched: Debug bits Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 17:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Linus Torvalds
2019-02-18 20:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19  0:29     ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-19 15:15       ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-22 12:17     ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-22 14:20       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-22 19:26         ` Tim Chen
2019-02-26  8:26           ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-27  7:54             ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-21  2:53   ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-21 14:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:44       ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22  0:34       ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 12:45   ` Mel Gorman
2019-02-22 16:10     ` Mel Gorman
2019-03-08 19:44     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11  4:23       ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-11 18:34         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 23:33           ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12  0:20             ` Greg Kerr
2019-03-12  0:47               ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12  7:33               ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-12  7:45             ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-13  5:55               ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14  0:35                 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-14  5:30                   ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14  6:07                     ` Li, Aubrey
2019-03-18  6:56             ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-12 19:07           ` Pawan Gupta
2019-03-26  7:32       ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-26  7:56         ` Aaron Lu
2019-02-19 22:07 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-20  9:42   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 18:33     ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-22 14:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 22:06         ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-20 18:43     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-01  2:54 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-14 15:28 ` Julien Desfossez

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=20190218173514.359026684@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kerrnel@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).