From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Loadavg accounting error on arm64 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:31:49 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201116193149.GW3371@techsingularity.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201116142005.GE3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:20:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I think this is at least one possibility. I think at least that one > > should only be explicitly set on WF_MIGRATED and explicitly cleared in > > sched_ttwu_pending. While I haven't audited it fully, it might be enough > > to avoid a double write outside of the rq lock on the bitfield but I > > still need to think more about the ordering of sched_contributes_to_load > > and whether it's ordered by p->on_cpu or not. > > The scenario you're worried about is something like: > > CPU0 CPU1 > > schedule() > prev->sched_contributes_to_load = X; > deactivate_task(prev); > > try_to_wake_up() > if (p->on_rq &&) // false > if (smp_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu) && // true > ttwu_queue_wakelist()) > p->sched_remote_wakeup = Y; > > smp_store_release(prev->on_cpu, 0); > Yes. > And then the stores of X and Y clobber one another.. Hummph, seems > reasonable. One quick thing to test would be something like this: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index 7abbdd7f3884..9844e541c94c 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -775,7 +775,9 @@ struct task_struct { > unsigned sched_reset_on_fork:1; > unsigned sched_contributes_to_load:1; > unsigned sched_migrated:1; > + unsigned :0; > unsigned sched_remote_wakeup:1; > + unsigned :0; > #ifdef CONFIG_PSI > unsigned sched_psi_wake_requeue:1; > #endif And this works. 986.01 1008.17 1013.15 2/855 1212 362.19 824.70 949.75 1/856 1564 133.19 674.65 890.32 1/864 1958 49.04 551.89 834.61 2/871 2339 18.33 451.54 782.41 1/867 2686 6.77 369.37 733.45 1/866 2929 2.55 302.16 687.55 1/864 2931 0.97 247.18 644.52 1/860 2933 0.48 202.23 604.20 1/849 2935 I should have gone with this after rereading the warning about bit fields having to be protected by the same lock in the "anti-guarantees" section of memory-barriers.txt :( sched_psi_wake_requeue can probably stay with the other three fields given they are under the rq lock but sched_remote_wakeup needs to move out. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Loadavg accounting error on arm64 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:31:49 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201116193149.GW3371@techsingularity.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201116142005.GE3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:20:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I think this is at least one possibility. I think at least that one > > should only be explicitly set on WF_MIGRATED and explicitly cleared in > > sched_ttwu_pending. While I haven't audited it fully, it might be enough > > to avoid a double write outside of the rq lock on the bitfield but I > > still need to think more about the ordering of sched_contributes_to_load > > and whether it's ordered by p->on_cpu or not. > > The scenario you're worried about is something like: > > CPU0 CPU1 > > schedule() > prev->sched_contributes_to_load = X; > deactivate_task(prev); > > try_to_wake_up() > if (p->on_rq &&) // false > if (smp_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu) && // true > ttwu_queue_wakelist()) > p->sched_remote_wakeup = Y; > > smp_store_release(prev->on_cpu, 0); > Yes. > And then the stores of X and Y clobber one another.. Hummph, seems > reasonable. One quick thing to test would be something like this: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index 7abbdd7f3884..9844e541c94c 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -775,7 +775,9 @@ struct task_struct { > unsigned sched_reset_on_fork:1; > unsigned sched_contributes_to_load:1; > unsigned sched_migrated:1; > + unsigned :0; > unsigned sched_remote_wakeup:1; > + unsigned :0; > #ifdef CONFIG_PSI > unsigned sched_psi_wake_requeue:1; > #endif And this works. 986.01 1008.17 1013.15 2/855 1212 362.19 824.70 949.75 1/856 1564 133.19 674.65 890.32 1/864 1958 49.04 551.89 834.61 2/871 2339 18.33 451.54 782.41 1/867 2686 6.77 369.37 733.45 1/866 2929 2.55 302.16 687.55 1/864 2931 0.97 247.18 644.52 1/860 2933 0.48 202.23 604.20 1/849 2935 I should have gone with this after rereading the warning about bit fields having to be protected by the same lock in the "anti-guarantees" section of memory-barriers.txt :( sched_psi_wake_requeue can probably stay with the other three fields given they are under the rq lock but sched_remote_wakeup needs to move out. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 19:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-11-16 9:10 Loadavg accounting error on arm64 Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 9:10 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 11:49 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 11:49 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 12:00 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 12:00 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 15:29 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 15:29 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 16:42 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 16:42 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 17:24 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 17:24 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 17:41 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-16 17:41 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-16 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 12:58 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 12:58 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 13:11 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-16 13:11 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-16 13:37 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 13:37 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 15:52 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 15:52 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-16 17:16 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 17:16 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-16 19:31 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2020-11-16 19:31 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-17 8:30 ` [PATCH] sched: Fix data-race in wakeup Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 9:15 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-17 9:15 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-17 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 10:36 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-17 10:36 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-17 12:52 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-17 12:52 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-17 15:37 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-17 15:37 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-17 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 19:32 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-17 19:32 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-18 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-18 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-18 9:51 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-18 9:51 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-18 13:33 ` Marco Elver 2020-11-18 13:33 ` Marco Elver 2020-11-17 9:38 ` [PATCH] sched: Fix rq->nr_iowait ordering Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 11:43 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-17 11:43 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-19 9:55 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-17 12:40 ` [PATCH] sched: Fix data-race in wakeup Mel Gorman 2020-11-17 12:40 ` Mel Gorman 2020-11-19 9:55 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
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=20201116193149.GW3371@techsingularity.net \ --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=will@kernel.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: linkBe 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.