lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/6] sched: Add nice value change notifier
From
Date

On 01/10/2021 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:32:16AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 01/10/2021 10:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On 30/09/2021 19:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 06:15:47PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>   void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>       bool queued, running;
>>>>> -    int old_prio;
>>>>> +    int old_prio, ret;
>>>>>       struct rq_flags rf;
>>>>>       struct rq *rq;
>>>>> @@ -6913,6 +6945,9 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p,
>>>>> long nice)
>>>>>        */
>>>>>       p->sched_class->prio_changed(rq, p, old_prio);
>>>>> +    ret = atomic_notifier_call_chain(&user_nice_notifier_list,
>>>>> nice, p);
>>>>> +    WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != NOTIFY_DONE);
>>>>> +
>>>>>   out_unlock:
>>>>>       task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
>>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> No, we're not going to call out to exported, and potentially unbounded,
>>>> functions under scheduler locks.
>>>
>>> Agreed, that's another good point why it is even more hairy, as I have
>>> generally alluded in the cover letter.
>>>
>>> Do you have any immediate thoughts on possible alternatives?
>>>
>>> Like for instance if I did a queue_work from set_user_nice and then ran
>>> a notifier chain async from a worker? I haven't looked at yet what
>>> repercussion would that have in terms of having to cancel the pending
>>> workers when tasks exit. I can try and prototype that and see how it
>>> would look.
>>
>> Hm or I simply move calling the notifier chain to after task_rq_unlock? That
>> would leave it run under the tasklist lock so probably still quite bad.
>
> Hmm? That's for normalize_rt_tasks() only, right? Just don't have it
> call the notifier in that special case (that's a magic sysrq thing
> anyway).

You mean my talk about tasklist_lock? No, it is also on the syscall part
I am interested in as well. Call chain looks like this:

sys_setpriority()
{
...
rcu_read_lock();
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
...
set_one_prio()
set_user_nice()
{
...
task_rq_lock();
-> my notifier from this RFC [1]
task_rq_unlock();
-> I can move the notifier here for _some_ improvement [2]
}
...
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
}

So this RFC had the notifier call chain at [1], which I understood was
the thing you initially pointed was horrible, being under a scheduler lock.

I can trivially move it to [2] but that still leaves it under the
tasklist lock. I don't have a good feel how much better that would be.
If not good enough then I will look for a smarter solution with less
opportunity for global impact.

Regards,

Tvrtko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-04 10:14    [W:4.465 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site