lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 14/18] sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()
On 01/04/11 06:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Currently ttwu() does two rq->lock acquisitions, once on the task's
> old rq, holding it over the p->state fiddling and load-balance pass.
> Then it drops the old rq->lock to acquire the new rq->lock.
>
> By having serialized ttwu(), p->sched_class, p->cpus_allowed with
> p->pi_lock, we can now drop the whole first rq->lock acquisition.
>
> The p->pi_lock serializing concurrent ttwu() calls protects p->state,
> which we will set to TASK_WAKING to bridge possible p->pi_lock to
> rq->lock gaps and serialize set_task_cpu() calls against
> task_rq_lock().
>
> The p->pi_lock serialization of p->sched_class allows us to call
> scheduling class methods without holding the rq->lock, and the
> serialization of p->cpus_allowed allows us to do the load-balancing
> bits without races.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> kernel/sched_fair.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2436,69 +2436,60 @@ ttwu_post_activation(struct task_struct
> * Returns %true if @p was woken up, %false if it was already running
> * or @state didn't match @p's state.
> */
> -static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
> - int wake_flags)
> +static int
> +try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> {
> - int cpu, orig_cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
> + int cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
> unsigned long flags;
> - unsigned long en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP;
> struct rq *rq;
>
> this_cpu = get_cpu();
>
> smp_wmb();
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> - rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
> if (!(p->state & state))
> goto out;
>
> cpu = task_cpu(p);
>
> - if (p->on_rq)
> - goto out_running;
> + if (p->on_rq) {
> + rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
> + if (p->on_rq)
> + goto out_running;
> + __task_rq_unlock(rq);
> + }
>
> - orig_cpu = cpu;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p)))
> - goto out_activate;

I think this while (p->on_cpu) can lead to a deadlock. I'll explain at the
bottom of this email.

> + while (p->on_cpu)
> + cpu_relax();


>
> p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);
> p->state = TASK_WAKING;
>
> - if (p->sched_class->task_waking) {
> + if (p->sched_class->task_waking)
> p->sched_class->task_waking(p);
> - en_flags |= ENQUEUE_WAKING;
> - }
>
> cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> - if (cpu != orig_cpu)
> - set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> - __task_rq_unlock(rq);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>
> - /*
> - * We migrated the task without holding either rq->lock, however
> - * since the task is not on the task list itself, nobody else
> - * will try and migrate the task, hence the rq should match the
> - * cpu we just moved it to.
> - */
> - WARN_ON(task_cpu(p) != cpu);
> - WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (cpu != task_cpu(p))
> + set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
>
> if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
> rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> +#endif
>
> -out_activate:
> -#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> - activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
> + activate_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_WAKING);
> out_running:
> ttwu_post_activation(p, rq, wake_flags);
> ttwu_stat(rq, p, cpu, wake_flags);
> success = 1;
> -out:
> __task_rq_unlock(rq);
> +out:
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> put_cpu();

The deadlock can occur if __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW and
__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW are defined.

A task sets p->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, then calls schedule().

schedule()
prev->on_rq = 0
context_switch()
prepare_task_switch()
prepare_lock_switch()
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock)

At this point, a pending interrupt (on this same cpu) is handled.
The interrupt handling results in a call to try_to_wake_up() on the
current process. The try_to_wake_up() gets into:

while (p->on_cpu)
cpu_relax();

and spins forever. This is because "prev->on_cpu = 0" slightly
after this point at:

finish_task_switch()
finish_lock_switch()
prev->on_cpu = 0


One possible fix would be to get rid of __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW.
I don't suspect the reaction to that suggestion will be very positive...

Another fix might be:

while (p->on_cpu) {
if (p == current)
goto out_activate;
cpu_relax();
}

Then add back in the out_activate label.

I don't know if the second fix is good -- I haven't thought out how
it impacts the later patches in the series.

-Frank



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-29 02:09    [W:0.117 / U:32.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site