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 S1753494AbcEPJqm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 05:46:42 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:37830 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753326AbcEPJql (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 05:46:41 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 10:46:38 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing
 update_rq_clock()
Message-ID: <20160516094638.GB6574@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1463082593-27777-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <1463082593-27777-6-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160515021439.GC8790@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160515021439.GC8790@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 15 May, at 10:14:39AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Thanks for Ccing me.
> 
> I am indeed interested, because I recently encountered an rq clock
> issue, which is that the clock jumps about 200ms when I was
> experimenting the "flat util hierarchy" patches, which really annoyed
> me, and I had to stop to figure out what is wrong (but haven't yet
> figured out ;))
> 
> First, this patchset does not solve my problem, but never mind, by
> reviewing your patches, I have some comments:
 
Thanks for the review. One gap that this patch series doesn't address
is that some callers of update_rq_clock() do not pin rq->lock, which
makes the diagnostic checks useless in that case.

I plan on handling that next, but I wanted to get this series out as
soon as possible for review.

> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:49:53PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >  
> > -	rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
> > +	/* Clear ACT, preserve everything else */
> > +	rq->clock_update_flags ^= RQCF_ACT_SKIP;
> 
> The comment says "Clear ACT", but this is really xor, and I am not sure
> this is even what you want.
 
Urgh, you're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote
that.

> In addition, would it be simpler to do this?
> 
> update_rq_clock()
> 	if (flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP)
> 		flags <<= 1; /* effective skip is an update */
> 		return;
> 
> 	flags = RQCF_UPDATED;

No because if someone calls rq_clock() immediately after __schedule(),
or even immediately after we clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP in __schedule(), we
should trigger a warning since the clock has not actually been
updated.