lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched: Stop nohz stats when decayed
On 8 February 2018 at 16:44, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:05:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 February 2018 at 15:00, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >
>> >> @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
>> >> if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_SCHED))
>> >> return;
>> >>
>> >> + rq->has_blocked_load = 1;
>
> Should we not set that with rq->lock held? We already clear it while
> holding rq->lock.

I think it's safe because it is used to re-enable the periodic decay
unconditionally.
It is cleared with rq->lock held to prevents any update of the cfs_rq
*_avg while deciding if we can clear has_blocked_load

>
>> >> +
>> >> if (rq->nohz_tick_stopped)
>> >> - return;
>> >
>> > this case is difficult... needs thinking
>>
>> The use case happens when a CPU wakes up and goes back to idle before
>> the tick fires and clears nohz_tick_stopped.
>
> Yes, and so we could have accrued blocked load. Now in this case the CPU
> must already be set in the cpumask, but we could've already cleared
> has_blocked.
>
> My question is mostly about needing that "goto out" to set the flag,
> because I think we can loose it on a store collision vs clearing it. But
> in that case I suppose the iteration must already be in progress, which
> in turn will observe rq->has_blocked_load and re-set nohz.has_blocked.
>
> So yes, this is good, but could use a comment.
>
>> > Without this ordering I think it would be possible to loose has_blocked
>> > and not observe the CPU either.
>>
>> I think that you are right.
>> I also wondered if some barriers were necessary but wrongly concluded
>> that set operation on nohz.idle_cpus_mask and WRITE_ONCE with volatile
>> would be enough to ensure the right ordering
>
> Yeah, so I forgot to write the comment in my patch, but it had the
> barriers implied by cmpxchg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-08 17:53    [W:0.057 / U:4.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site