From: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Avoid obvious double update_rq_clock warning
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:24:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <84f61791-8cf2-b955-5d71-1cab15129ab2@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df0c4d87-68be-7aef-597f-043b3c7fea59@arm.com>
On 2022/4/21 Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 10:29, Hao Jia wrote:
>> On 4/19/22 6:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 05:09:29PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I'm really not sure about this part though. This is a bit of a mess. The
>>> balancer doesn't really need the pinning stuff. I realize you did that
>>> because we got the clock annotation mixed up with that, but urgh.
>>>
>>> Basically we want double_rq_lock() / double_lock_balance() to clear
>>> RQCF_UPDATED, right? Perhaps do that directly?
>>>
>>> (maybe with an inline helper and a wee comment?)
>>>
>>> The only immediate problem with this would appear to be that
>>> _double_rq_lock() behaves differently when it returns 0. Not sure that
>>> matters.
>>>
>>> Hmm?
>>
>> Thanks for your review comments.
>> As you have prompted, the WARN_DOUBLE_CLOCK warning is still triggered
>> when _double_rq_lock() returns 0.
>> Please review the solution below, and based on your review, I will
>> submit the v2 patch as soon as possible.
>> Thanks.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe something like this:
>
> -->8--
>
> From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:12:10 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] sched/core: Clear RQCF_UPDATED in _double_lock_balance() &
> double_rq_lock()
>
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++---
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 068c088e9584..f4cfe7eea861 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -610,10 +610,10 @@ void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> swap(rq1, rq2);
>
> raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> - if (__rq_lockp(rq1) == __rq_lockp(rq2))
> - return;
> + if (__rq_lockp(rq1) != __rq_lockp(rq2))
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
> - raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + rq_clock_clear_update(rq1, rq2);
> }
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 58263f90c559..3a77b10d7cc4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -2515,6 +2515,16 @@ static inline bool rq_order_less(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
>
> extern void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
> +static inline void rq_clock_clear_update(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> +{
> + rq1->clock_update_flags &= (RQCF_REQ_SKIP|RQCF_ACT_SKIP);
> + rq2->clock_update_flags &= (RQCF_REQ_SKIP|RQCF_ACT_SKIP);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void rq_clock_clear_update(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2) {}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
>
> /*
> @@ -2549,14 +2559,15 @@ static inline int _double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest)
> __acquires(busiest->lock)
> __acquires(this_rq->lock)
> {
> - if (__rq_lockp(this_rq) == __rq_lockp(busiest))
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest)))
> + if (__rq_lockp(this_rq) == __rq_lockp(busiest) ||
> + likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest))) {
> + rq_clock_clear_update(this_rq, busiest);
> return 0;
> + }
>
> if (rq_order_less(this_rq, busiest)) {
> raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(busiest, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + rq_clock_clear_update(this_rq, busiest);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2650,6 +2661,7 @@ static inline void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> BUG_ON(rq1 != rq2);
> raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> __acquire(rq2->lock); /* Fake it out ;) */
> + rq_clock_clear_update(rq1, rq2);
Thanks for your review.
This is very helpful to me.
If CONFIG_SMP is not enabled, should we just clear the RQCF_UPDATED of
one of rq1 and q2?
like this:
rq1->clock_update_flags &= (RQCF_REQ_SKIP|RQCF_ACT_SKIP);
Thanks.
> }
>
> /*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-21 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-18 9:09 [PATCH] sched/core: Avoid obvious double update_rq_clock warning Hao Jia
2022-04-19 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-20 8:29 ` [External] " Hao Jia
2022-04-20 19:11 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-21 7:24 ` Hao Jia [this message]
2022-04-21 10:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-21 12:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-21 13:15 ` [External] " Hao Jia
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=84f61791-8cf2-b955-5d71-1cab15129ab2@bytedance.com \
--to=jiahao.os@bytedance.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).