From: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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 15:43:52 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <830d7225-af90-a55a-991a-bb2023d538f1@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180502082011.GB12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 5/2/2018 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, yes in all cases unpark will
observe parked state only.
>
>
> 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.
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-02 10:14 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
2018-05-02 10:13 ` Kohli, Gaurav [this message]
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=830d7225-af90-a55a-991a-bb2023d538f1@codeaurora.org \
--to=gkohli@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--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=peterz@infradead.org \
--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).