lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework
From
Date
On 06/06/2018 06:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-06-18, 16:54, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/06/2018 12:39, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I don't think you are doing a mistake. Even if this can happen
>> theoretically, I don't think practically that is the case.
>>
>> The play_idle() has 1ms minimum sleep time.
>>
>> The scenario you are describing means:
>>
>> 1. the loop in idle_injection_wakeup() takes more than 1ms to achieve
>
> There are many ways in which idle_injection_wakeup() can get called.
>
> - from hrtimer handler, this happens in softirq context, right? So interrupts
> can still block the handler to run ?
>
> - from idle_injection_start(), process context. RT or DL or IRQ activity can
> block the CPU for long durations sometimes.
>
>> 2. at the same time, the user of the idle injection unregisters while
>> the idle injection is acting precisely at CPU0 and exits before another
>> task was wakeup by the loop in 1. more than 1ms after.
>>
>> >From my POV, this scenario can't happen.
>
> Maybe something else needs to be buggy as well to make this crap happen.
>
>> Anyway, we must write rock solid code
>
> That's my point.
>
>> so may be we can use a refcount to
>> protect against that, so instead of freeing in unregister, we refput the
>> ii_dev pointer.
>
> I think the solution can be a simple change in implementation of
> idle_injection_wakeup(), something like this..
>
> +static void idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, ii_dev->cpumask, cpu_online_mask)
> + atomic_inc(&ii_dev->count);
>
> +
> + mb(); //I am not sure but I think we need some kind of barrier here ?

(mb() are done in the atomic operations AFAICT).

What about:

get_online_cpus();

nr_tasks = cpumask_weight(
cpumask_and(ii_dev->cpumask, cpu_online_mask);

atomic_set(&ii_dev->count, nr_tasks);

for_each_cpu_and(cpu, ii_dev->cpumask, cpu_online_mask) {
iit = per_cpu_ptr(&idle_injection_thread, cpu);
iit->should_run = 1;
wake_up_process(iit->tsk);
}

put_online_cpus();
?

I'm wondering if we can have a CPU hotplugged right after the
'put_online_cpus', resulting in the 'should park' flag set and then the
thread goes in the kthread_parkme instead of jumping back the idle
injection function and decrease the count, leading up to the timer not
being set again.

--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-06 12:23    [W:0.044 / U:6.932 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site