linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:21:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjlfcvhcx5.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YABDI6Qkp5PNslUS@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 14/01/21 14:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:28:13PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > @@ -4972,9 +4977,11 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker
>> >          * of all workers first and then clear UNBOUND.  As we're called
>> >          * from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
>> >          */
>> > -       for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
>> > +       for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
>> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
>> >                                                   pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
>> > +               kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
>>
>> Will the schedule break affinity in the middle of these two lines due to
>> patch4 allowing it and result in Paul's reported splat.
>
> So something like the below _should_ work, except i'm seeing odd WARNs.
> I'll prod at it some more.
>
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2371,6 +2371,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__worker)
>       /* tell the scheduler that this is a workqueue worker */
>       set_pf_worker(true);
>  woke_up:
> +	kthread_parkme();
>       raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
>       /* am I supposed to die? */
> @@ -2428,6 +2429,7 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__worker)
>                       move_linked_works(work, &worker->scheduled, NULL);
>                       process_scheduled_works(worker);
>               }
> +		kthread_parkme();
>       } while (keep_working(pool));
>
>       worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_PREP);
> @@ -4978,9 +4980,9 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker
>        * from CPU_ONLINE, the following shouldn't fail.
>        */
>       for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task,
> -						  pool->attrs->cpumask) < 0);
> +		kthread_park(worker->task);

Don't we still need an affinity change here, to undo what was done in
unbind_workers()?

Would something like

  __kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask, TASK_PARKED)

even work?

>               kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, true);
> +		kthread_unpark(worker->task);
>       }
>
>       raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-14 13:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-12 14:43 [PATCH 0/4] sched: Fix hot-unplug regressions Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-12 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/4] kthread: Extract KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-12 14:43 ` [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-12 16:36   ` Lai Jiangshan
2021-01-13 11:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-12 17:57   ` Valentin Schneider
2021-01-13 13:28   ` Lai Jiangshan
2021-01-13 14:16     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-01-13 17:52       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-13 18:43         ` Valentin Schneider
2021-01-13 18:59           ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-14 13:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-14 13:21       ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-01-14 15:34         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-16  6:27           ` Lai Jiangshan
2021-01-16 12:45             ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-16 14:45               ` Lai Jiangshan
2021-01-16 15:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-16 16:14                   ` Lai Jiangshan
2021-01-16 18:46                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-17  9:54                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-16 15:13               ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-12 14:43 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: Fix CPU hotplug / tighten is_per_cpu_kthread() Peter Zijlstra

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=jhjlfcvhcx5.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=cai@redhat.com \
    --cc=decui@microsoft.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
    --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).