Re: [PATCH 04/19] sched: Prepare for Core-wide rq->lock

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 03:21:36PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index f732642e3e09..1a81e9cc9e5d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -290,6 +290,10 @@ static void sched_core_assert_empty(void)
> >  static void __sched_core_enable(void)
> >  {
> >         static_branch_enable(&__sched_core_enabled);
> > +       /*
> > +        * Ensure raw_spin_rq_*lock*() have completed before flipping.
> > +        */
> > +       synchronize_sched();
> 
> synchronize_rcu()

Moo, I actually like synchronize_sched() because it indicates it matches
a preempt disabled region.

> >         __sched_core_flip(true);
> >         sched_core_assert_empty();
> >  }
> > @@ -449,16 +453,22 @@ void raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(struct rq *rq, int subclass)
> >  {
> >         raw_spinlock_t *lock;
> >
> > +       preempt_disable();
> >         if (sched_core_disabled()) {
> >                 raw_spin_lock_nested(&rq->__lock, subclass);
> > +               /* preempt *MUST* still be disabled here */
> > +               preempt_enable_no_resched();
> >                 return;
> >         }
> 
> This approach looks good to me. I'm guessing you went this route
> instead of doing the re-check after locking in order to optimize the
> disabled case?

Exactly.

> Recommend a comment that the preempt_disable() here pairs with the
> synchronize_rcu() in __sched_core_enable().

Fair enough.