From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFCEC433E0 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17CB20774 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="o/GCCrxJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D17CB20774 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 67ED36B0002; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 630D36B0005; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:57:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 51E5F6B0006; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:57:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0092.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.92]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F9A6B0002 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6E43572 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:57:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76908161442.22.vein33_570bf3f26dbf Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C535B18038E67 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:57:01 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: vein33_570bf3f26dbf X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7797 Received: from mail-vs1-f68.google.com (mail-vs1-f68.google.com [209.85.217.68]) by imf49.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f68.google.com with SMTP id j13so11085019vsn.3 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n021Bv2sm3YRmta3I91RDU4sLE2ElfUH8G8nw2qo8eU=; b=o/GCCrxJ8LOZxQY0gEjPerQWKZdD4HYbN3kq002PwZu3hVxjsei57KMYIpCbuAHgNA h/EGBq+NhW4vSjZg4ssUVQIWgyu0JrB5sd2XjhRfrHSCrb22BhXxWxv8EscX2zdasIrB kssEyyaX8ZgAynZqTsvlCbD1vcFYyai6Wkj7V3DlKgkGeDCp5D/HOK/p6jkaV2YDvr/g 4TJNIDRjm1DNPjBQ5+wuQ9wjxdNRzvKovLd7SNTOqX4g3YlQPFPJ/zBNenOfY7S+aTAI hZs9wgUaaSXsnII+sYJtL05lrfkefJDDqLADA+GENrNK5wCCsP15Ud2Hp+oRAlxmYGcb /QMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n021Bv2sm3YRmta3I91RDU4sLE2ElfUH8G8nw2qo8eU=; b=eXXn/6sboRWhLdrCmsmQxrIuTEXRqcpHtU/1eBYsHNJHtqYRrSUuHOYIrulmK4LMlE RWyw9+ltwB5M8PSkaT/fYPUBDKCKG///ygySY4ds0yMMucUe0Y2K+ScF5xWjvZaC23n1 n5dG/FQdvK8e1Mu8XUrnz6luUhxzRIZc6qtQFCKZNhTncSAropUz4zr/jx70lrnEJ+77 U+KKsdh0fY02FynWLuPIQo9LYKzzc++v8I9BjVAJj2vX4uCFqN4Faasv2r69uFopy7jN z8IskznapCg1CMEHXWqtEbxokHELoRAYkThPVP1YywL3Rq7HGhg0M2BR7/lx06KFjM5p ga2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530pB3np2OPBjX9ikFS6k+Ekx9sICHCBj5caZyEhM2vOaaUc7JU6 rvV9NOHwxRNQx3Iq6MX5bLQz0XPYYso+/lCSD7z/wQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoZ8B15Wtzm0OsHQ/N3REdS7lJEraKx3KX9bE9C++I4vi5BwHLo9Mbo7ScmMvdlg6uB6bVU1KqFELFetzxrys= X-Received: by 2002:a67:1d06:: with SMTP id d6mr1259880vsd.119.1591671420266; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200528195442.190116-1-surenb@google.com> <20200604131215.GB4117@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:56:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] psi: eliminate kthread_worker from psi trigger scheduling mechanism To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Johannes Weiner , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Benjamin Segall , mgorman@suse.de, Shakeel Butt , linux-mm , LKML , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C535B18038E67 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:20 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 6:12 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:54:42PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > Each psi group requires a dedicated kthread_delayed_work and > > > kthread_worker. Since no other work can be performed using psi_group's > > > kthread_worker, the same result can be obtained using a task_struct and > > > a timer directly. This makes psi triggering simpler by removing lists > > > and locks involved with kthread_worker usage and eliminates the need for > > > poll_scheduled atomic use in the hot path. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan > > > --- > > > This patch is meant to address Peter's request in [1] to pull > > > kthread_queue_delayed_work() out from under rq->lock. This should also address > > > the lockdep warning about possibility of a circular dependency described in [2] > > > > I think you could've just fixed kthread_queue_delayed_work(), that code > > is sub-optimal. After some more staring into kthread code I think I understand what Peter's comment meant about delayed_work_list. worker->delayed_work_list seems to be unnecessary because each kthread_delayed_work has its own timer which will add the work into worker->work_list when the time comes. So there is no need to store the delayed work in an intermediate worker->delayed_work_list. However I think kthread_destroy_worker() has an issue if it's called while worker->delayed_work_list is non-empty. The issue is that kthread_destroy_worker() does not stop all the kthread_delayed_work->timers scheduled on the worker->delayed_work_list. So if such a timer fires after a call to kthread_destroy_worker(), timer's handler will dereference the already destroyed worker. If I'm right and this is indeed an issue then I think we do need worker->delayed_work_list to cancel all the scheduled timers. The issue can be avoided if we assume that the caller will alway call kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync() for each delayed_work scheduled on worker->delayed_work_list before calling kthread_destroy_worker(). If that's what we expect I think this expectation should be reflected in the comments and a WARN_ON(!list_empty(&worker->delayed_work_list)) be added in kthread_destroy_worker(). WDYT? > > Ok, let me look into it some more. My understanding was that the > worker->lock in kthread_queue_delayed_work() was needed to synchronize > worker->delayed_work_list access. But maybe I'm missing something... I > assume you are talking about optimizing this beyond what > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/4/1148 was doing? > > BTW, any objections against taking https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/4/1148 > ? It's not the ultimate fix but it is an improvement since it gets > some of the operations that were unnecessarily under worker->lock out > of it. > > > > > But I suppose this works too. > > In PSI's case there is always one work for each worker, so the > delayed_work_list and work_list are not needed and therefore I can > replace kthread_worker machinery with a task and a timer. > I think I can simplify this a bit further. For example > group->poll_wakeup doesn't have to be an atomic. Originally I wanted > to avoid a possibility of a race when poll_timer_fn sets it and > psi_poll_worker resets it and as a result misses a wakeup, however if > psi_poll_worker resets it before calling psi_poll_work then there is > no harm in missing a wakeup because we called psi_poll_work and did > the required work anyway. > > One question about this patch I'm not sure about and wanted to ask you > Peter is whether it's ok to call mod_timer from within a hotpath > (while holding rq->lock). As I described in the additional comment, > there is a possibility of a race between when I check timer_pending > and the call to mod_timer, so it's possible that mod_timer might be > called both from psi_poll_work (psi poll work handler) and from > psi_task_change (hotpath under rq->lock). I see that mod_timer takes > base->lock spinlock, and IIUC such a race might block the hotpath and > therefore is unacceptable. If this is true I'll need to revive the > poll_scheduled atomic to close this race and then I can change > mod_timer into add_timer. > WDYT? And sorry for my ignorance if this is a trivial question. I'm > not sure about the rules when it comes to rq->locks. > > Thanks, > Suren. > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com. > >