From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754622Ab2ALRI5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:08:57 -0500
Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:40233 "EHLO
	mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754574Ab2ALRIx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:08:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1326353130.2442.177.camel@twins>
References: <CADZ9YHicin2YjGm_m9B0LMv3NW1Z3cb7HSCaqwycFmVfRpvpWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326302955.2442.174.camel@twins>
	<CADZ9YHiC8732D=D8KpkT0d+81_BNdAvj0ZJLwL5mhyq9OPLW0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326353130.2442.177.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:08:53 +0600
Message-ID: <CADZ9YHiGjjGJjxKj4WKWydqAz0zxFwY5=LsYBKhEREuZm=bKpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()?
From: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 12:09 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 23:22 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> >> Hello all,
>> >>
>> >> In ttwu_do_activate(), we're decrementing nr_uninterruptible if
>> >> p->sched_contributes_to_load (for SMP=y). But, we're also decrementing
>> >> nr_uninterruptible from activate_task at the same path. Why we're
>> >> doing it twice for a single task activation path?
>> >
>> > activate_task() does:
>> >
>> >  if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
>> >   rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>> >
>> > Now task_contributes_to_load() reads like:
>> >
>> > #define task_contributes_to_load(task)  \
>> >                                ((task->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) != 0 && \
>> >                                 (task->flags & PF_FREEZING) == 0)
>> >
>> > which will be false, since we've set TASK_WAKING.
>>
>> Enough confusing. TASK_WAKING will be set when called from
>> try_to_wake_up(). ttwu_do_activate() gets called from other places:
>> scheduler_ipi() and sched_ttwu_pending() (at the time of cpu goes
>> down). TASK_WAKING will be not set at that time,
>
> Yes it will be, the only way to get on that list is throught
> ttwu_queue_remote() at which point tasks are TASK_WAKING.
>
>>  moreover it is
>> possible that, task has p->sched_contributes_to_load is set and latter
>> on gets wake up by sched_ttwu_pending/scheduler_ipi() call.
>
> That's the entire point. But all ways to ttwu_queue_remote() explicitly
> set ->sched_contributes_to_load.

That might be the case for scheduler_ipi(), but when
sched_ttwu_pending() gets called when a cpu goes down, all tasks from
wake_list of that cpu has been moved without TASK_WAKING is set. For a
particular task it might be possible that when it ran previously it
had p->sched_contributes_to_load is set. Latter, this task's cpu has
been put down and calls sched_ttwu_pending(), then for that task
p->sched_contributes_to_load is set and TASK_WAKING is not set.
Couldn't be happen?

Thanks,
Rakib