From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/19] sched: Prepare for Core-wide rq->lock
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 16:07:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAERHkrvBdFHWxXu=iHAPMe=1dB0qtG_HTMtUbvVviv7_7kc97Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJUNY0dmrJMD/BIm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 8:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>
> When switching on core-sched, CPUs need to agree which lock to use for
> their RQ.
>
> The new rule will be that rq->core_enabled will be toggled while
> holding all rq->__locks that belong to a core. This means we need to
> double check the rq->core_enabled value after each lock acquire and
> retry if it changed.
>
> This also has implications for those sites that take multiple RQ
> locks, they need to be careful that the second lock doesn't end up
> being the first lock.
>
> Verify the lock pointer after acquiring the first lock, because if
> they're on the same core, holding any of the rq->__lock instances will
> pin the core state.
>
> While there, change the rq->__lock order to CPU number, instead of rq
> address, this greatly simplifies the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Tested-by: Don Hiatt <dhiatt@digitalocean.com>
> Tested-by: Hongyu Ning <hongyu.ning@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 48 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -186,12 +186,37 @@ int sysctl_sched_rt_runtime = 950000;
>
> void raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(struct rq *rq, int subclass)
> {
> - raw_spin_lock_nested(rq_lockp(rq), subclass);
> + raw_spinlock_t *lock;
> +
> + if (sched_core_disabled()) {
> + raw_spin_lock_nested(&rq->__lock, subclass);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + lock = rq_lockp(rq);
> + raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass);
> + if (likely(lock == rq_lockp(rq)))
> + return;
> + raw_spin_unlock(lock);
> + }
> }
>
> bool raw_spin_rq_trylock(struct rq *rq)
> {
> - return raw_spin_trylock(rq_lockp(rq));
> + raw_spinlock_t *lock;
> + bool ret;
> +
> + if (sched_core_disabled())
> + return raw_spin_trylock(&rq->__lock);
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + lock = rq_lockp(rq);
> + ret = raw_spin_trylock(lock);
> + if (!ret || (likely(lock == rq_lockp(rq))))
> + return ret;
> + raw_spin_unlock(lock);
> + }
> }
>
> void raw_spin_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq)
> @@ -199,6 +224,25 @@ void raw_spin_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq)
> raw_spin_unlock(rq_lockp(rq));
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/*
> + * double_rq_lock - safely lock two runqueues
> + */
> +void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
Do we need the static lock checking here?
__acquires(rq1->lock)
__acquires(rq2->lock)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> +
> + if (rq_order_less(rq2, rq1))
> + swap(rq1, rq2);
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> + if (rq_lockp(rq1) == rq_lockp(rq2)) {
And here?
__acquire(rq2->lock);
> + return;
}
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * __task_rq_lock - lock the rq @p resides on.
> */
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -1113,6 +1113,11 @@ static inline bool is_migration_disabled
> #endif
> }
>
> +static inline bool sched_core_disabled(void)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
> {
> return &rq->__lock;
> @@ -2231,10 +2236,17 @@ unsigned long arch_scale_freq_capacity(i
> }
> #endif
>
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
>
> -static inline void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2);
> +static inline bool rq_order_less(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> +{
> + return rq1->cpu < rq2->cpu;
> +}
> +
> +extern void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
>
> /*
> * fair double_lock_balance: Safely acquires both rq->locks in a fair
> @@ -2274,14 +2286,13 @@ static inline int _double_lock_balance(s
> if (likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest)))
> return 0;
>
> - if (rq_lockp(busiest) >= rq_lockp(this_rq)) {
> + if (rq_order_less(this_rq, busiest)) {
> raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(busiest, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> return 0;
> }
>
> raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq);
> - raw_spin_rq_lock(busiest);
> - raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(this_rq, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + double_rq_lock(this_rq, busiest);
>
> return 1;
> }
> @@ -2334,31 +2345,6 @@ static inline void double_raw_lock(raw_s
> }
>
> /*
> - * double_rq_lock - safely lock two runqueues
> - *
> - * Note this does not disable interrupts like task_rq_lock,
> - * you need to do so manually before calling.
> - */
> -static inline void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> - __acquires(rq1->lock)
> - __acquires(rq2->lock)
> -{
> - BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> - if (rq_lockp(rq1) == rq_lockp(rq2)) {
> - raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> - __acquire(rq2->lock); /* Fake it out ;) */
> - } else {
> - if (rq_lockp(rq1) < rq_lockp(rq2)) {
> - raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> - raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> - } else {
> - raw_spin_rq_lock(rq2);
> - raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq1, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> - }
> - }
> -}
> -
> -/*
> * double_rq_unlock - safely unlock two runqueues
> *
> * Note this does not restore interrupts like task_rq_unlock,
> @@ -2368,11 +2354,11 @@ static inline void double_rq_unlock(stru
> __releases(rq1->lock)
> __releases(rq2->lock)
> {
> - raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq1);
> if (rq_lockp(rq1) != rq_lockp(rq2))
> raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq2);
> else
> __release(rq2->lock);
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq1);
This change seems not necessary, as the softlockup root cause is not
the misorder lock release.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-08 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-22 12:04 [PATCH 00/19] sched: Core Scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 01/19] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-13 8:56 ` Ning, Hongyu
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 02/19] sched: Provide raw_spin_rq_*lock*() helpers Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 03/19] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 04/19] sched: Prepare for Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-24 1:22 ` Josh Don
2021-04-26 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-26 22:21 ` Josh Don
2021-04-27 17:10 ` Don Hiatt
2021-04-27 23:35 ` Josh Don
2021-04-28 1:03 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-28 6:05 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-28 10:57 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-28 16:41 ` Don Hiatt
2021-04-29 20:48 ` Josh Don
2021-04-29 21:09 ` Don Hiatt
2021-04-29 23:22 ` Josh Don
2021-04-30 16:18 ` Don Hiatt
2021-04-30 8:26 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-28 16:04 ` Don Hiatt
2021-04-27 23:30 ` Josh Don
2021-04-28 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-28 10:35 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-28 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-28 14:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-04-29 20:11 ` Josh Don
2021-05-03 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-28 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-28 6:02 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-29 8:03 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-29 20:39 ` Josh Don
2021-04-30 8:20 ` Aubrey Li
2021-04-30 8:48 ` Josh Don
2021-04-30 14:15 ` Aubrey Li
2021-05-04 7:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-05 16:20 ` Don Hiatt
2021-05-06 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-07 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 " Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-08 8:07 ` Aubrey Li [this message]
2021-05-12 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 05/19] sched: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-07 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 " Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 06/19] sched: Optimize rq_lockp() usage Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 07/19] sched: Allow sched_core_put() from atomic context Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 08/19] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 09/19] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 10/19] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 11/19] sched/fair: Fix forced idle sibling starvation corner case Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vineeth Pillai
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 12/19] sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied task with sibling Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Joel Fernandes (Google)
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 13/19] sched/fair: Snapshot the min_vruntime of CPUs on force idle Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Joel Fernandes (Google)
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 14/19] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 15/19] sched: Migration changes for core scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Aubrey Li
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 16/19] sched: Trivial core scheduling cookie management Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 17/19] sched: Inherit task cookie on fork() Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-10 16:06 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-10 16:22 ` Chris Hyser
2021-05-10 20:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-10 21:38 ` Chris Hyser
2021-05-12 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 20:20 ` Josh Don
2021-05-12 21:07 ` Don Hiatt
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 18/19] sched: prctl() core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Chris Hyser
2021-06-14 23:36 ` [PATCH 18/19] " Josh Don
2021-06-15 11:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-08-05 16:53 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2021-08-05 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-17 15:15 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2021-08-17 15:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-17 23:17 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2021-08-19 11:09 ` [PATCH] sched: Fix Core-wide rq->lock for uninitialized CPUs Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-19 15:50 ` Tao Zhou
2021-08-19 16:19 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2021-08-20 0:18 ` Josh Don
2021-08-20 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-23 9:07 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 12:05 ` [PATCH 19/19] kselftest: Add test for core sched prctl interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-12 10:28 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Chris Hyser
2021-04-22 16:43 ` [PATCH 00/19] sched: Core Scheduling Don Hiatt
2021-04-22 17:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-30 6:47 ` Ning, Hongyu
2021-05-06 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-06 12:53 ` Ning, Hongyu
2021-05-07 18:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-10 16:16 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-11 7:00 ` Vincent Guittot
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='CAERHkrvBdFHWxXu=iHAPMe=1dB0qtG_HTMtUbvVviv7_7kc97Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).