From: chengchao <chengchao@kedacom.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tj@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: simpler function for sched_exec migration
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:22:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <89a992af-67cd-91b4-8890-a19ccb251fe6@kedacom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160906152253.GB17586@redhat.com>
Oleg, thank you very much.
on 09/06/2016 11:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/06, chengchao wrote:
>>
>> the key point is for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y,
>> ...
>> it is too much overhead for one task(fork()+exec()), isn't it?
>
> Yes, yes, I see, this is suboptimal. Not sure we actually do care,
> but yes, perhaps another helper which migrates the current task makes
> sense, I dunno.
for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y, this patch wants the stopper thread can migrate the current
successfully instead of doing nothing.
>
> But,
>
>>> stop_one_cpu_sync() assumes that cpu == smp_processor_id/task_cpu(current),
>>> and thus the stopper thread should preempt us at least after schedule()
>>> (if CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE), so we do not need to synchronize.
>>>
>> yes. the stop_one_cpu_sync is not a good name, stop_one_cpu_schedule is better?
>> there is nothing about synchronization.
>
> We need to synchronize with the stopper to ensure it can't touch
> cpu_stop_work on stack after stop_one_cpu_sync() returns, and
yes, you are right.
>
>>> But this is not necessarily true? This task can migrate to another CPU
>>> before cpu_stop_queue_work() ?
>>>
>> before sched_exec() calls stop_one_cpu()/cpu_stop_queue_work(), this
>> task(current) cannot migrate to another cpu,because this task is running
>> on the cpu.
>
> Why? The running task can migrate to another CPU at any moment. Unless it
> runs with preemption disabled or CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y.
yes, this patch focused the CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y at the beginning, so I didn't
pay more attention to the CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y.
>
> And this means that cpu_stop_queue_work() can queue the work on another
> CPU != smp_processor_id(), and in this case the kernel can crash because
> the pending cpu_stop_work can be overwritten right after return.
>
> So you need something like
>
> void stop_one_cpu_sync(cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
> {
> struct cpu_stop_work work = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg, .done = NULL };
>
> preempt_disable();
> cpu_stop_queue_work(raw_smp_processor_id(), &work);
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> schedule();
> }
>
> or I am totally confused. Note that it doesn't (and shouldn't) have
> the "int cpu" argument.
>
if preempt happens after preempt_enable_no_resched(), there is still risky that the
stop_one_cpu_sync() returns before the stopper thread can use cpu_stop_work safely.
as you said previously.
thus, I modify the patch:
int stop_one_cpu(unsigned int cpu, cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
{
struct cpu_stop_done done;
struct cpu_stop_work work = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg, .done = &done };
cpu_stop_init_done(&done, 1);
if (!cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, &work))
return -ENOENT;
#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE)
/*
* let the stopper thread runs as soon as possible,
* and keep current TASK_RUNNING.
*/
scheudle();
#endif
wait_for_completion(&done.completion);
return done.ret;
}
remove the new function stop_one_cpu_sync(). When I posted this patch, I didn't want to
modify the stop_one_cpu(), because there are many functions to call the stop_one_cpu().
but now, I think it's good place to modify.
Any suggestions? thanks again.
> Oleg.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-07 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-05 6:20 [PATCH] sched/core: simpler function for sched_exec migration cheng chao
2016-09-05 13:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-06 2:11 ` chengchao
2016-09-06 15:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-07 3:22 ` chengchao [this message]
2016-09-07 12:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-08 2:17 ` chengchao
2016-09-09 10:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-09 1:39 ` [lkp] [sched/core] 3d26b7622f: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000001 kernel test robot
2016-09-09 2:04 ` chengchao
2016-09-09 2:26 ` Ye Xiaolong
2016-09-09 2:36 ` chengchao
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=89a992af-67cd-91b4-8890-a19ccb251fe6@kedacom.com \
--to=chengchao@kedacom.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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).