From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
willy@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de, jpoimboe@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
bristot@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
geert@linux-m68k.org, glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de,
anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
David.Laight@aculab.com, richard@nod.at, mjguzik@gmail.com,
jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/30] sched: handle preempt=voluntary under PREEMPT_AUTO
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:26:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36eef8c5-8ecd-4c90-8851-1c2ab342e2bb@paulmck-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wmq9mkx2.fsf@oracle.com>
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 09:50:33PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 08:22:30PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:15:35PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 3/7/2024 2:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:42:10PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi Ankur,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 3/5/2024 3:11 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> writes:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >>>> IMO, just kill 'voluntary' if PREEMPT_AUTO is enabled. There is no
> >> >> >>>> 'voluntary' business because
> >> >> >>>> 1. The behavior vs =none is to allow higher scheduling class to preempt, it
> >> >> >>>> is not about the old voluntary.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> What do you think about folding the higher scheduling class preemption logic
> >> >> >>> into preempt=none? As Juri pointed out, prioritization of at least the leftmost
> >> >> >>> deadline task needs to be done for correctness.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> (That'll get rid of the current preempt=voluntary model, at least until
> >> >> >>> there's a separate use for it.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes I am all in support for that. Its less confusing for the user as well, and
> >> >> >> scheduling higher priority class at the next tick for preempt=none sounds good
> >> >> >> to me. That is still an improvement for folks using SCHED_DEADLINE for whatever
> >> >> >> reason, with a vanilla CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernel. :-P. If we want a new mode
> >> >> >> that is more aggressive, it could be added in the future.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This would be something that happens only after removing cond_resched()
> >> >> > might_sleep() functionality from might_sleep(), correct?
> >> >>
> >> >> Firstly, Maybe I misunderstood Ankur completely. Re-reading his comments above,
> >> >> he seems to be suggesting preempting instantly for higher scheduling CLASSES
> >> >> even for preempt=none mode, without having to wait till the next
> >> >> scheduling-clock interrupt. Not sure if that makes sense to me, I was asking not
> >> >> to treat "higher class" any differently than "higher priority" for preempt=none.
> >> >>
> >> >> And if SCHED_DEADLINE has a problem with that, then it already happens so with
> >> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, so no need special treatment for higher class any
> >> >> more than the treatment given to higher priority within same class. Ankur/Juri?
> >> >>
> >> >> Re: cond_resched(), I did not follow you Paul, why does removing the proposed
> >> >> preempt=voluntary mode (i.e. dropping this patch) have to happen only after
> >> >> cond_resched()/might_sleep() modifications?
> >> >
> >> > Because right now, one large difference between CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
> >> > an CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is that for the latter might_sleep() is a
> >> > preemption point, but not for the former.
> >>
> >> True. But, there is no difference between either of those with
> >> PREEMPT_AUTO=y (at least right now).
> >>
> >> For (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y),
> >> might_sleep() is:
> >>
> >> # define might_resched() do { } while (0)
> >> # define might_sleep() \
> >> do { __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__); might_resched(); } while (0)
> >>
> >> And, cond_resched() for (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y,
> >> DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y):
> >>
> >> static inline int _cond_resched(void)
> >> {
> >> klp_sched_try_switch();
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> #define cond_resched() ({ \
> >> __might_resched(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0); \
> >> _cond_resched(); \
> >> })
> >>
> >> And, no change for (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_NONE=y, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y).
> >
> > As long as it is easy to restore the prior cond_resched() functionality
> > for testing in the meantime, I should be OK. For example, it would
> > be great to have the commit removing the old functionality from
> > cond_resched() at the end of the series,
>
> I would, of course, be happy to make any changes that helps testing,
> but I think I'm missing something that you are saying wrt
> cond_resched()/might_sleep().
>
> There's no commit explicitly removing the core cond_reshed()
> functionality: PREEMPT_AUTO explicitly selects PREEMPT_BUILD and selects
> out PREEMPTION_{NONE,VOLUNTARY}_BUILD.
> (That's patch-1 "preempt: introduce CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO".)
>
> For the rest it just piggybacks on the CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC work
> and just piggybacks on (!CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC && CONFIG_PREEMPTION):
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC)
> /* ... */
> #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL)
> /* ... */
> #elif defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY)
> /* ... */
> #else /* !CONFIG_PREEMPTION */
> /* ... */
> #endif /* PREEMPT_DYNAMIC && CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL */
>
> #else /* CONFIG_PREEMPTION && !CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC */
> static inline int _cond_resched(void)
> {
> klp_sched_try_switch();
> return 0;
> }
> #endif /* !CONFIG_PREEMPTION || CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC */
>
> Same for might_sleep() (which really amounts to might_resched()):
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY_BUILD
> /* ... */
> #elif defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL)
> /* ... */
> #elif defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY)
> /* ... */
> #else
> # define might_resched() do { } while (0)
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_* */
>
> But, I doubt that I'm telling you anything new. So, what am I missing?
It is really a choice at your end.
Suppose we enable CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO on our fleet, and find that there
was some small set of cond_resched() calls that provided sub-jiffy
preemption that matter to some of our workloads. At that point, what
are our options?
1. Revert CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO.
2. Revert only the part that disables the voluntary preemption
semantics of cond_resched(). Which, as you point out, ends up
being the same as #1 above.
3. Hotwire a voluntary preemption into the required locations.
Which we would avoid doing due to upstream-acceptance concerns.
So, how easy would you like to make it for us to use as much of
CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO=y under various possible problem scenarios?
Yes, in a perfect world, we would have tested this already, but I
am still chasing down problems induced by simple rcutorture testing.
Cowardly of us, isn't it? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-11 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 155+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-13 5:55 [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 01/30] preempt: introduce CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 02/30] thread_info: selector for TIF_NEED_RESCHED[_LAZY] Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 15:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-20 22:50 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-21 18:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-21 20:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 03/30] thread_info: tif_need_resched() now takes resched_t as param Ankur Arora
2024-02-14 3:17 ` kernel test robot
2024-02-14 14:08 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-15 4:08 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 12:30 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-20 22:09 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 15:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-20 22:21 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 17:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-21 21:22 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 04/30] sched: make test_*_tsk_thread_flag() return bool Ankur Arora
2024-02-14 14:12 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-15 2:04 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 05/30] sched: *_tsk_need_resched() now takes resched_t as param Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 15:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-20 22:37 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 17:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 06/30] entry: handle lazy rescheduling at user-exit Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 15:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-20 22:38 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 07/30] entry/kvm: handle lazy rescheduling at guest-entry Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 08/30] entry: irqentry_exit only preempts for TIF_NEED_RESCHED Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 09/30] sched: __schedule_loop() doesn't need to check for need_resched_lazy() Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 10/30] sched: separate PREEMPT_DYNAMIC config logic Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 11/30] sched: runtime preemption config under PREEMPT_AUTO Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 12/30] rcu: limit PREEMPT_RCU to full preemption " Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 13/30] rcu: fix header guard for rcu_all_qs() Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 14/30] preempt,rcu: warn on PREEMPT_RCU=n, preempt=full Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 15/30] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n, PREEMPT_COUNT=y Ankur Arora
2024-03-10 10:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-10 18:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-11 0:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-11 3:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-11 15:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-11 20:51 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-11 22:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-03-11 5:18 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-11 15:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-11 19:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-03-11 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-11 20:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-03-12 0:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-12 0:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-12 3:16 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-12 3:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-12 5:23 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 16/30] rcu: force context-switch " Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 17/30] x86/thread_info: define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-02-14 13:25 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-14 20:31 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-19 12:32 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 18/30] sched: prepare for lazy rescheduling in resched_curr() Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 19/30] sched: default preemption policy for PREEMPT_AUTO Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 20/30] sched: handle idle preemption " Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 21/30] sched: schedule eagerly in resched_cpu() Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 22/30] sched/fair: refactor update_curr(), entity_tick() Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 23/30] sched/fair: handle tick expiry under lazy preemption Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 21:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-28 13:47 ` Juri Lelli
2024-02-29 6:43 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-29 9:33 ` Juri Lelli
2024-02-29 23:54 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-01 0:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 24/30] sched: support preempt=none under PREEMPT_AUTO Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 25/30] sched: support preempt=full " Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 26/30] sched: handle preempt=voluntary " Ankur Arora
2024-03-03 1:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-05 8:11 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-06 20:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-07 19:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-08 0:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-08 0:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-08 4:22 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-08 21:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-11 4:50 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-11 19:26 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2024-03-11 20:09 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-11 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-11 21:03 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-12 0:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-12 12:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-03-12 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-08 3:49 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-08 5:29 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-08 6:54 ` Juri Lelli
2024-03-11 5:34 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 27/30] sched: latency warn for TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 28/30] tracing: support lazy resched Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 29/30] Documentation: tracing: add TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 21:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-21 23:22 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 23:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-01 23:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-03-02 3:09 ` Ankur Arora
2024-03-03 19:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-13 5:55 ` [PATCH 30/30] osnoise: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n, PREEMPTION=y Ankur Arora
2024-02-13 9:47 ` [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-02-13 21:46 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-14 23:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 2:03 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-15 3:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 19:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 20:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-15 20:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 20:53 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-15 20:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 21:24 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-15 22:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-15 22:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-16 0:45 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-16 2:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-17 0:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-17 3:59 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-18 18:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-19 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-21 18:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-21 19:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-21 20:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-21 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-22 15:50 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-22 19:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-23 11:05 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-23 15:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-02 1:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-19 11:45 ` Tasks RCU, ftrace, and trampolines (was: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling) Mark Rutland
2024-03-19 23:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-21 6:48 ` [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 17:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-02-16 0:45 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-21 12:23 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-02-21 17:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-21 17:27 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-02-21 21:16 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-22 4:05 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-02-22 21:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-23 3:14 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-23 6:28 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-02-24 3:15 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-02-27 17:45 ` Ankur Arora
2024-02-22 13:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2024-04-23 15:21 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-04-23 16:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-26 7:46 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-04-26 19:00 ` Ankur Arora
2024-05-07 11:16 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-05-08 5:18 ` Ankur Arora
2024-05-15 14:31 ` Shrikanth Hegde
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=36eef8c5-8ecd-4c90-8851-1c2ab342e2bb@paulmck-laptop \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
--cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
--cc=bharata@amd.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bristot@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jon.grimm@amd.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=krypton@ulrich-teichert.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@amd.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).