linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	will@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk, cl@rock-chips.com, ke.wang@unisoc.com,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthread: break dependency between worker->lock and task_struct->pi_lock
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:04:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGsRwJGwyny0X0APa2yCjyBttyMtTOPr3K5NqcWehtzxw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200428163125.GC16910@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:31 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:43:58AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > A number of kthread-related functions indirectly take task_struct->pi_lock
> > while holding worker->lock in the call chain like this:
> >     spin_lock(&worker->lock)
> >     kthread_insert_work
> >     wake_up_process
> >     try_to_wake_up
> >     raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags)
> >
> > This lock dependency exists whenever kthread_insert_work is called either
> > directly or indirectly via __kthread_queue_delayed_work in the following
> > functions:
> >     kthread_queue_work
> >     kthread_delayed_work_timer_fn
> >     kthread_queue_delayed_work
> >     kthread_flush_work
> >     kthread_mod_delayed_work
> >
> > This creates possibilities for circular dependencies like the one reported
> > at: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/954
>
> Please, do not use lkml.org links.

Thanks for the review! Would
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJuCfpG4NkhpQvZjgXZ_3gm6Hf1QgN_eUOQ8iX9Cv1k9whLwSQ@mail.gmail.com
be better or should I just add the body of that report here? Or do not
mention it at all?

>
> Also, ideally, we'd pull that kthread_queue_delayed_work() out from
> under rq->lock.

I understand but I don't see an easy way to do that. We need to start
PSI polling whenever a monitored PSI state changes:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.6.7/source/kernel/sched/psi.c#L783.
This is happening under rq->lock because PSI accounting is done from
inside enqueue_task/dequeue_task - the call chain is:

enqueue_task > psi_enqueue > psi_task_change > psi_group_change >
psi_schedule_poll_work > psi_task_change

IIUC enqueue_task/dequeue_task are called with rq->lock taken, so
moving kthread_queue_delayed_work out is not trivial.

>
> In fact, looking at it, WTH is the delayed branch of
> kthread_queue_delayed_work() under that lock? That whole
> delayed_work_list thing smells like bong-hits.

I have the poll_scheduled atomic specifically to ensure that
kthread_queue_delayed_work does not block as commented here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc3/source/kernel/sched/psi.c#L551.
I understand this is not ideal. If there is a better way to schedule
that kworker while ensuring it does not block I would be happy to
rework this. Any suggestions?

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-28 18:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-27 18:43 [PATCH 1/1] kthread: break dependency between worker->lock and task_struct->pi_lock Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-04-28 16:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-28 18:04   ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2020-04-30 17:57     ` Suren Baghdasaryan

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=CAJuCfpGsRwJGwyny0X0APa2yCjyBttyMtTOPr3K5NqcWehtzxw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=cl@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=ke.wang@unisoc.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@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).