lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [12]   [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 10/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> 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.

No, I was just curious. iow, I am asking, not arguing.

> 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?

it even disables irqs, so this should always imply rcu_read_lock() with
any implementation, I guess. However I was told we should not rely on
this, and say posix_timer_event() does rcu_read_lock() even it is always
called under spin_lock_irq().

But what I actually tried to say, it seems that this particular change
looks fine even if cpu_down() doesn't do sync_sched/rcu at all, because
we can rely on __migrate_task(). IOW, if we race with DOWN_PREPARE and
miss set_cpu_active(false) we can pretend that this CPU goes down later.

> 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.

OK.

> > > @@ -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.

OK, thanks, I was just curious.

In fact I do not even understand why getaffinity() doesn't simply
return ->cpus_allowed, but this is off-topic.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-12 19:41    [W:0.105 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site