From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@kernel.org,
bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 10:20:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180502082011.GB12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b289790-9b3a-73bd-7166-bf39f32cefd8@codeaurora.org>
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:45:52AM +0530, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 6:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > - complete(&kthread->parked), which we can do inside schedule(); this
> > solves the problem because then kthread_park() will not return early
> > and the task really is blocked.
>
> I think complete will not help, as problem is like below :
>
> Control Thread CPUHP thread
>
> cpuhp_thread_fun
> Wake control thread
> complete(&st->done);
>
> takedown_cpu
> kthread_park
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK
>
> Here cpuhp is looping,
> //success case
> Generally when issue is not
> coming
> it schedule out by below :
> ht->thread_should_run(td->cpu
> scheduler
> //failure case
> before schedule
> loop check
> (kthread_should_park()
> enter here as PARKED set
>
> wake_up_process(k)
If k has TASK_PARKED, then wake_up_process() which uses TASK_NORMAL will
no-op, because:
TASK_PARKED & TASK_NORMAL == 0
> __kthread_parkme
> complete(&self->parked);
> SETS RUNNING
> schedule
But suppose, you do get that store, and we get to schedule with
TASK_RUNNING, then schedule will no-op and we'll go around the loop and
not complete.
See also: lkml.kernel.org/r/20180430111744.GE4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Either TASK_RUNNING gets set before we do schedule() and we go around
again, re-set TASK_PARKED, resched the condition and re-call schedule(),
or we schedule() first and ttwu() will not issue the TASK_RUNNING store.
In either case, we'll eventually hit schedule() with TASK_PARKED. Then,
and only then will the complete() happen.
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->parked);
The point is, we'll only ever complete ^ that completion when we've
scheduled out the task in TASK_PARKED state. If the task didn't get
parked, no completion.
And that is the reason I like this approach above the others. It
guarantees the task really is parked when we ask for it. We don't have
to deal with the task still running and getting migrated to another CPU
nonsense.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-02 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-25 8:33 [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup Gaurav Kohli
2018-04-25 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 4:04 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-04-26 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 8:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 15:53 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-04-30 11:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 7:50 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 10:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 10:40 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 11:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 11:46 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-02 5:15 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-02 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-05-02 10:13 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-07 11:09 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-07 11:23 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 11:13 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 15:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-06-05 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05 15:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05 16:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-06-05 18:21 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 20:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 13:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-06-06 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 18:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-07 8:30 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 16:02 ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-26 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-04-30 11:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-30 11:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-28 6:43 ` [lkp-robot] [kthread/smpboot] cad8e99675: inconsistent{IN-HARDIRQ-W}->{HARDIRQ-ON-W}usage kernel test robot
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=20180502082011.GB12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=gkohli@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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).