lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 08:25:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > As a penance I'll start by removing all get_online_cpus() usage from the
> > scheduler.
>
> I only looked at the change in setaffinity,
>
> > @@ -3706,7 +3707,6 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> > struct task_struct *p;
> > int retval;
> >
> > - get_online_cpus();
> > rcu_read_lock();
>
> Hmm. In theory task_rq_lock() doesn't imply rcu-lock, so
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() can miss the change in cpu_active_mask. But this
> is probably fine, CPU_DYING does __migrate_task().

I'm fine with always doing sync_sched(); sync_rcu(); if that makes you
feel better. But I thought that assuming that !PREEMPT sync_rcu() would
imply sync_sched() was ok. I think the comment there even says as much.

And task_rq_lock() will very much disable preemption; and thus we get
what we want, right?

In any case; the goal was to make either RCU or preempt-disable
sufficient.

> However. This means that sched_setaffinity() can fail if it races with
> the failing cpu_down() (say, __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE) fails).
> Probably we do not really care, just this looks a bit confusing.

Couldn't be bothered; failing hotplug will have side-effects any which
way.

> > @@ -3814,7 +3813,6 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
> > unsigned long flags;
> > int retval;
> >
> > - get_online_cpus();
>
> This change is probably fine in any case?

Yes.

> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > retval = -ESRCH;
> > @@ -3827,12 +3825,11 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
> > goto out_unlock;
> >
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> > - cpumask_and(mask, &p->cpus_allowed, cpu_online_mask);
> > + cpumask_and(mask, &p->cpus_allowed, cpu_active_mask);
>
> But I am just curious, is this change is strictly needed?

No; we could do without. It really doesn't matter much if anything. I
only did it because sched_setaffinity()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr() checks
against active, not online. And had a sudden urge to make get/set
symmetric -- totally pointless otherwise.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-11 23:41    [W:0.134 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site