linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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).