xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>
To: "sstabellini@kernel.org" <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: "George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com" <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"julien.grall@arm.com" <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	"jgross@suse.de" <jgross@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] dom0less + sched=null => broken in staging
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 05:35:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <114c301a92c942208c63daa5046db4534b95da4a.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908231722430.26226@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>


[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 18:16 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Hey, Stefano, Julien,
> > 
> > Here's another patch.
> > 
> > Rather than a debug patch, this is rather an actual "proposed
> > solution".
> > 
> > Can you give it a go? If it works, I'll spin it as a proper patch.
> 
> Yes, this seems to solve the problem, thank you!
> 
Hey,

Sorry this is taking a little while. Can any of you please test the
attached, on top of current staging?

In fact, I rebased the patch in my last email on top of that, and I'd
like to know if it still works, even now that core-scheduling is in.

If it does, then a proper changelog is the only thing it'd be missing,
and I'll do it quickly, I promise :-)

Regards,
Dario
-- 
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: xen-sched-null-vcpu-onoff-coresched.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 6949 bytes --]

commit 403339e2da498491573b8db539fe0307643264ee
Author: Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>
Date:   Sat Oct 26 00:21:29 2019 +0200

    TBD: Fix for online issue

diff --git a/xen/common/sched_null.c b/xen/common/sched_null.c
index 2525464a7c..af1cf5e37e 100644
--- a/xen/common/sched_null.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched_null.c
@@ -568,50 +568,52 @@ static void null_unit_wake(const struct scheduler *ops,
     else
         SCHED_STAT_CRANK(unit_wake_not_runnable);
 
+    if ( likely(per_cpu(npc, cpu).unit == unit) )
+    {
+        cpu_raise_softirq(cpu, SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
+        return;
+    }
+
     /*
      * If a unit is neither on a pCPU nor in the waitqueue, it means it was
-     * offline, and that it is now coming back being online.
+     * offline, and that it is now coming back being online. If we're lucky,
+     * and it's previous resource is free (and affinities match), we can just
+     * assign the unit to it (we own the proper lock already) and be done.
      */
-    if ( unlikely(per_cpu(npc, cpu).unit != unit && list_empty(&nvc->waitq_elem)) )
+    if ( per_cpu(npc, cpu).unit == NULL &&
+         unit_check_affinity(unit, cpu, BALANCE_HARD_AFFINITY) )
     {
-        spin_lock(&prv->waitq_lock);
-        list_add_tail(&nvc->waitq_elem, &prv->waitq);
-        spin_unlock(&prv->waitq_lock);
-
-        cpumask_and(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu), unit->cpu_hard_affinity,
-                    cpupool_domain_master_cpumask(unit->domain));
-
-        if ( !cpumask_intersects(&prv->cpus_free, cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu)) )
+        if ( !has_soft_affinity(unit) ||
+             unit_check_affinity(unit, cpu, BALANCE_SOFT_AFFINITY) )
         {
-            dprintk(XENLOG_G_WARNING, "WARNING: d%dv%d not assigned to any CPU!\n",
-                    unit->domain->domain_id, unit->unit_id);
+            unit_assign(prv, unit, cpu);
+            cpu_raise_softirq(cpu, SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
             return;
         }
+    }
 
-        /*
-         * Now we would want to assign the unit to cpu, but we can't, because
-         * we don't have the lock. So, let's do the following:
-         * - try to remove cpu from the list of free cpus, to avoid races with
-         *   other onlining, inserting or migrating operations;
-         * - tickle the cpu, which will pickup work from the waitqueue, and
-         *   assign it to itself;
-         * - if we're racing already, and if there still are free cpus, try
-         *   again.
-         */
-        while ( cpumask_intersects(&prv->cpus_free, cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu)) )
-        {
-            unsigned int new_cpu = pick_res(prv, unit)->master_cpu;
+    /*
+     * If the resource is not free (or affinities do not match) we need
+     * to assign unit to some other one, but we can't do it here, as:
+     * - we don't own  the proper lock,
+     * - we can't change v->processor under vcpu_wake()'s feet.
+     * So we add it to the waitqueue, and tickle all the free CPUs (if any)
+     * on which unit can run. The first one that schedules will pick it up.
+     */
+    spin_lock(&prv->waitq_lock);
+    list_add_tail(&nvc->waitq_elem, &prv->waitq);
+    spin_unlock(&prv->waitq_lock);
 
-            if ( test_and_clear_bit(new_cpu, &prv->cpus_free) )
-            {
-                cpu_raise_softirq(new_cpu, SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
-                return;
-            }
-        }
-    }
+    cpumask_and(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu), unit->cpu_hard_affinity,
+                cpupool_domain_master_cpumask(unit->domain));
+    cpumask_and(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu), cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu),
+                &prv->cpus_free);
 
-    /* Note that we get here only for units assigned to a pCPU */
-    cpu_raise_softirq(sched_unit_master(unit), SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
+    if ( cpumask_empty(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu)) )
+        dprintk(XENLOG_G_WARNING, "WARNING: d%dv%d not assigned to any CPU!\n",
+                unit->domain->domain_id, unit->unit_id);
+    else
+        cpumask_raise_softirq(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu), SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
 }
 
 static void null_unit_sleep(const struct scheduler *ops,
@@ -827,6 +829,8 @@ static void null_schedule(const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *prev,
      */
     if ( unlikely(prev->next_task == NULL) )
     {
+        bool unit_found;
+
         spin_lock(&prv->waitq_lock);
 
         if ( list_empty(&prv->waitq) )
@@ -839,6 +843,7 @@ static void null_schedule(const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *prev,
          * it only in cases where a pcpu has no unit associated (e.g., as
          * said above, the cpu has just joined a cpupool).
          */
+        unit_found = false;
         for_each_affinity_balance_step( bs )
         {
             list_for_each_entry( wvc, &prv->waitq, waitq_elem )
@@ -849,13 +854,45 @@ static void null_schedule(const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *prev,
 
                 if ( unit_check_affinity(wvc->unit, sched_cpu, bs) )
                 {
-                    unit_assign(prv, wvc->unit, sched_cpu);
-                    list_del_init(&wvc->waitq_elem);
-                    prev->next_task = wvc->unit;
-                    goto unlock;
+                    spinlock_t *lock;
+
+                    unit_found = true;
+
+                    /*
+                     * If the unit in the waitqueue has just come up online,
+                     * we risk racing with vcpu_wake(). To avoid this, sync
+                     * on the spinlock that vcpu_wake() holds, but only with
+		     * trylock, to avoid deadlock).
+                     */
+                    lock = pcpu_schedule_trylock(sched_unit_master(wvc->unit));
+
+                    /*
+                     * We know the vcpu's lock is not this resource's lock. In
+                     * fact, if it were, since this cpu is free, vcpu_wake()
+                     * would have assigned the unit to here directly.
+                     */
+                    ASSERT(lock != get_sched_res(sched_cpu)->schedule_lock);
+
+                    if ( lock ) {
+                        unit_assign(prv, wvc->unit, sched_cpu);
+                        list_del_init(&wvc->waitq_elem);
+                        prev->next_task = wvc->unit;
+                        spin_unlock(lock);
+                        goto unlock;
+                    }
                 }
             }
         }
+        /*
+         * If we did find a unit with suitable affinity in the waitqueue, but
+         * we could not pick it up (due to lock contention), and hence we are
+         * still free, plan for another try. In fact, we don't want such unit
+         * to be stuck in the waitqueue, when there are free cpus where it
+         * could run.
+         */
+        if ( unlikely( unit_found && prev->next_task == NULL &&
+                       !list_empty(&prv->waitq)) )
+            cpu_raise_softirq(cur_cpu, SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
  unlock:
         spin_unlock(&prv->waitq_lock);
 

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-28  5:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-07 18:22 [Xen-devel] dom0less + sched=null => broken in staging Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-08  8:04 ` George Dunlap
2019-08-08 20:44   ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-09  7:40     ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-09 17:57 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-09 18:30   ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-13 15:27     ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-13 16:52       ` Julien Grall
2019-08-13 17:34         ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-13 18:43           ` Julien Grall
2019-08-13 22:26             ` Julien Grall
2019-08-13 22:34             ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-13 23:07               ` Julien Grall
2019-08-13 21:14       ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-14  2:04         ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-14 16:27           ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-08-14 17:35             ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-21 10:33               ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-24  1:16                 ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-09-11 13:53                   ` Dario Faggioli
2019-09-25 15:19                     ` Julien Grall
2019-09-25 15:34                       ` Dario Faggioli
2019-09-25 15:39                         ` Julien Grall
2019-09-25 15:41                           ` Jürgen Groß
2019-10-28  5:35                   ` Dario Faggioli [this message]
2019-10-28 18:40                     ` Stefano Stabellini

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=114c301a92c942208c63daa5046db4534b95da4a.camel@suse.com \
    --to=dfaggioli@suse.com \
    --cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.de \
    --cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).