All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:38:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170406073832.e7bu4ldpfuq44ui6@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170406061622.GA19979@gmail.com>

On 2017-04-06 08:16:22 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > On 2017-04-05 09:39:43 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > So maybe we could add the following facility:
> > > 
> > > 	ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(cpu);
> > > 
> > > 	...
> > > 
> > > 	sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
> 
> BTW., and I'm sure this has come up before, but why doesn't migrate_disable() use 
> a simple per task flag that the scheduler migration code takes into account?

we could add that. But right now there are two spots which look at the
counter to decide whether or not migration is disabled.

> It should be functionally equivalent to the current solution, and it appears to 
> have a heck of a smaller cross section with the rest of the scheduler.
> 
> I.e.:
> 
> 	static inline void migrate_disable(void)
> 	{
> 		current->migration_disabled++;
> 	}
> 
> 	...
> 
> 	static inline void migrate_enable(void)
> 	{
> 		current->migration_disabled--;
> 	}
> 
> or so? Then add this flag as a condition to can_migrate_task() et al.
> 
> While we generally dislike such flags as they wreck havoc with the scheduler if 
> overused, the cpus_allowed based solution has the exact same effect so it's not 
> like it's a step backwards - and it should also be much faster and less intrusive.

So you are saying that we drop the cpus_ptr + cpus_mask fields again and
instead add a task-flag to ensure that the scheduler does not migrate
the task to another CPU?

> Am I missing some complication?

We do have the counter. We have need to ensure that the CPU is not going
away while we are in a migrate_disable() region since we can be
scheduled out. So the CPU can't go offline until we leave that region.
This version uses get_online_cpus() while in -RT we have something
called "pin_current_cpu()". This is a lightweight version of
get_online_cpus() which should go away…
Right now I have this and I need to test this and complete CPU hop part:

#define migrate_disable()	sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(-1)

int sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(int cpu)
{
       struct task_struct *p = current;

       if (in_atomic()) {
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
               p->migrate_disable_atomic++;
               if (cpu >= 0)
                       WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_equal(p->cpus_ptr, cpumask_of(cpu)));
#endif
               return raw_smp_processor_id();
       }
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
       WARN_ON_ONCE(p->migrate_disable_atomic);
#endif

       if (p->migrate_disable) {
               p->migrate_disable++;
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
               if (cpu >= 0)
                       WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_equal(p->cpus_ptr, cpumask_of(cpu)));
#endif
               return raw_smp_processor_id();
       }

       get_online_cpus();

       preempt_disable();
       p->migrate_disable = 1;

       if (cpu < 0) {
               p->cpus_ptr = &cpumask_of(task_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id()));
       } else {
               if (!cpu_online(cpu)) {
                       preempt_enable();
                       put_online_cpus();
                       WARN(1, "CPU is offline\n");
                       return -ENODEV;
               }
               p->cpus_ptr = &cpumask_of(task_cpu((cpu)));
       }
       t->nr_cpus = 1;
       preempt_enable();

       if (cpumask_equal(p->cpus_ptr, cpumask_of(cpu)))
               return cpu;

       /* move to the correct CPU */
       BUG();
       return raw_smp_processor_id();
}

The task-flag / p->migrate_disable() counter is used in two spots in
       do_set_cpus_allowed();
       __set_cpus_allowed_ptr();

so that a change to the affinity mask does not force a CPU hop.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Sebastian

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-06  7:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-04 18:42 [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-05  7:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-05  8:37   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06  6:16     ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06  7:38       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2017-04-06  8:01         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06  9:25           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06  9:46             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:58               ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:41                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06  9:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06  9:42             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:36           ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:02             ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 11:10               ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-07  7:13                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06  9:34   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06  9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06  9:46   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 10:35     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:47       ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 10:57         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:03           ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:50             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:56               ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 12:31                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-11  1:38 ` [lkp-robot] [kernel] c1f943ee40: kernel_BUG_at_kernel/smpboot.c kernel test robot
2017-04-11  1:38   ` kernel test robot

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=20170406073832.e7bu4ldpfuq44ui6@linutronix.de \
    --to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.