Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:18:12 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees |
| |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:08:50PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > [snip] > > + * BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP > > + * > > + * For blocking we (obviously) need to provide the same guarantee as for > > + * migration. However the means are completely different as there is no lock > > + * chain to provide order. Instead we do: > > + * > > + * 1) smp_store_release(X->on_cpu, 0) > > + * 2) smp_cond_acquire(!X->on_cpu) > > + * > > + * Example: > > + * > > + * CPU0 (schedule) CPU1 (try_to_wake_up) CPU2 (schedule) > > + * > > + * LOCK rq(0)->lock LOCK X->pi_lock > > + * dequeue X > > + * sched-out X > > + * smp_store_release(X->on_cpu, 0); > > + * > > + * smp_cond_acquire(!X->on_cpu); > > + * X->state = WAKING > > + * set_task_cpu(X,2) > > + * > > + * LOCK rq(2)->lock > > + * enqueue X > > + * X->state = RUNNING > > + * UNLOCK rq(2)->lock > > + * > > + * LOCK rq(2)->lock // orders against CPU1 > > + * sched-out Z > > + * sched-in X > > + * UNLOCK rq(1)->lock > > + * > > + * UNLOCK X->pi_lock > > + * UNLOCK rq(0)->lock > > + * > > + * > > + * However; for wakeups there is a second guarantee we must provide, namely we > > + * must observe the state that lead to our wakeup. That is, not only must our > > + * task observe its own prior state, it must also observe the stores prior to > > + * its wakeup. > > + * > > + * This means that any means of doing remote wakeups must order the CPU doing > > + * the wakeup against the CPU the task is going to end up running on. This, > > + * however, is already required for the regular Program-Order guarantee above, > > + * since the waking CPU is the one issueing the ACQUIRE (2). > > + * > > Hope I'm the only one who got confused about the "2" in "ACQUIRE (2)", > what does that refer? "2) smp_cond_acquire(!X->on_cpu)"?
Yes, exactly that. Would an unadorned 2 be clearer?
| |