linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhang, Qiang" <Qiang.Zhang@windriver.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"paulmck@kernel.org" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with rcu_read_lock/unlock()
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:11:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB42027F9DA1B3E9B6BDFA5194FF389@DM6PR11MB4202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iYtNP54mUFs5VbmHxuXYjTBMrbCZ5CqfaHShnGdd+3Jg@mail.gmail.com>



________________________________________
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, 7 June 2021 19:45
To: Zhang, Qiang
Cc: Rafael Wysocki; Len Brown; Pavel Machek; Paul E. McKenney; Linux PM; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with rcu_read_lock/unlock()

[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:57 AM <qiang.zhang@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
>
> Using rcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock),
> the task list can be traversed in parallel to any list additions or
> removals, improve concurrency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>

>This changes the reader side only AFAICS, but what about the >writer side?

Hello  rafael

In the case of holding read_lock(tasklist_lock) 
if there are a lot of tasks in the system that need to be frozen,
the read_lock(tasklist_lock)  has not been released for a short time,
when clone task,  we will acquire write_lock(tasklist_lock) and insert task to list, if  Ifcan't get the write lock all the time.  the hung task
may be trigger and report warning.

for example:

copy_process()
{........
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
........
list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
}

>
>What exactly is there to ensure that the updates of the list will
>remain safe after this change?

The RCU  can guarantee that the list can be traversed and added at the same time,  and in the read critical area, it is guaranteed that the task structure will not be released.

In  ./Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst , it is also explained.

 Maybe we can ask  Paul E,  Paul E what's your opinion ?

Thanks
Qiang

> ---
>  kernel/power/process.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
> index 50cc63534486..0f8dee9ee097 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>
>         while (true) {
>                 todo = 0;
> -               read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +               rcu_read_lock();
>                 for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                         if (p == current || !freeze_task(p))
>                                 continue;
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>                         if (!freezer_should_skip(p))
>                                 todo++;
>                 }
> -               read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>
>                 if (!user_only) {
>                         wq_busy = freeze_workqueues_busy();
> @@ -97,13 +97,13 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>                         show_workqueue_state();
>
>                 if (!wakeup || pm_debug_messages_on) {
> -                       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +                       rcu_read_lock();
>                         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                                 if (p != current && !freezer_should_skip(p)
>                                     && freezing(p) && !frozen(p))
>                                         sched_show_task(p);
>                         }
> -                       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +                       rcu_read_unlock();
>                 }
>         } else {
>                 pr_cont("(elapsed %d.%03d seconds) ", elapsed_msecs / 1000,
> @@ -206,13 +206,13 @@ void thaw_processes(void)
>
>         cpuset_wait_for_hotplug();
>
> -       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                 /* No other threads should have PF_SUSPEND_TASK set */
>                 WARN_ON((p != curr) && (p->flags & PF_SUSPEND_TASK));
>                 __thaw_task(p);
>         }
> -       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
>         WARN_ON(!(curr->flags & PF_SUSPEND_TASK));
>         curr->flags &= ~PF_SUSPEND_TASK;
> @@ -233,12 +233,12 @@ void thaw_kernel_threads(void)
>
>         thaw_workqueues();
>
> -       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                 if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>                         __thaw_task(p);
>         }
> -       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
>         schedule();
>         pr_cont("done.\n");
> --
> 2.17.1
>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-07 14:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-07  6:57 [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with rcu_read_lock/unlock() qiang.zhang
2021-06-07 11:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-07 14:11   ` Zhang, Qiang [this message]
2021-06-07 15:41     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-08  2:50       ` Zhang, Qiang
2021-06-08  4:56         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-09  7:04           ` Zhang, Qiang

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=DM6PR11MB42027F9DA1B3E9B6BDFA5194FF389@DM6PR11MB4202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=qiang.zhang@windriver.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael@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: 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).