lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/19] sched: Prepare for Core-wide rq->lock
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:39 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> When switching on core-sched, CPUs need to agree which lock to use for
> their RQ.
>
> The new rule will be that rq->core_enabled will be toggled while
> holding all rq->__locks that belong to a core. This means we need to
> double check the rq->core_enabled value after each lock acquire and
> retry if it changed.
>
> This also has implications for those sites that take multiple RQ
> locks, they need to be careful that the second lock doesn't end up
> being the first lock.
>
> Verify the lock pointer after acquiring the first lock, because if
> they're on the same core, holding any of the rq->__lock instances will
> pin the core state.
>
> While there, change the rq->__lock order to CPU number, instead of rq
> address, this greatly simplifies the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 41 +++++++++++------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
----snip----
> @@ -199,6 +224,25 @@ void raw_spin_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq)
> raw_spin_unlock(rq_lockp(rq));
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/*
> + * double_rq_lock - safely lock two runqueues
> + */
> +void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> +
> + if (rq1->cpu > rq2->cpu)

It's still a bit hard for me to digest this function, I guess using (rq->cpu)
can't guarantee the sequence of locking when coresched is enabled.

- cpu1 and cpu7 shares lockA
- cpu2 and cpu8 shares lockB

double_rq_lock(1,8) leads to lock(A) and lock(B)
double_rq_lock(7,2) leads to lock(B) and lock(A)

change to below to avoid ABBA?
+ if (__rq_lockp(rq1) > __rq_lockp(rq2))

Please correct me if I was wrong.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> + swap(rq1, rq2);
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock(rq1);
> + if (rq_lockp(rq1) == rq_lockp(rq2))
> + return;
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_nested(rq2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> +}
> +#endif
> +

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-29 10:06    [W:0.185 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site