Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:01:07 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 09/18] kthread: Make it easier to correctly sleep in iterant kthreads |
| |
On Fri 2015-06-05 18:10:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:01:08PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Many kthreads go into an interruptible sleep when there is nothing > > to do. They should check if anyone did not requested the kthread > > to terminate, freeze, or park in the meantime. It is easy to do > > it a wrong way. > > INTERRUPTIBLE is the wrong state to idle in for kthreads, use > TASK_IDLE. > > --- > > commit 80ed87c8a9ca0cad7ca66cf3bbdfb17559a66dcf > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Date: Fri May 8 14:23:45 2015 +0200 > > sched/wait: Introduce TASK_NOLOAD and TASK_IDLE > > Currently people use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE to idle kthreads and wait for > 'work' because TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE contributes to the loadavg. Having > all idle kthreads contribute to the loadavg is somewhat silly. > > Now mostly this works OK, because kthreads have all their signals > masked. However there's a few sites where this is causing problems and > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE should be used, except for that loadavg issue. > > This patch adds TASK_NOLOAD which, when combined with > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE avoids the loadavg accounting. > > As most of imagined usage sites are loops where a thread wants to > idle, waiting for work, a helper TASK_IDLE is introduced.
Just to be sure. Do you suggest to use TASK_IDLE everywhere in kthreads or only when the uninterruptible sleep is really needed?
IMHO, we should not use TASK_IDLE in freezable kthreads because it would break freezing. Well, we could freezable_schedule() but only on locations where it is safe to get freezed. Anyway, we need to be careful here.
BTW: What is the preferred way of freezing, please? Is it better to end up in the fridge or is it fine to call freezer_do_not_count(); or set PF_NOFREEZE when it is safe?
The fridge looks more clean to me but in this case we should avoid uninterruptible sleep as much as possible.
Best Regards, Petr
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index dd07ac03f82a..7de815c6fa78 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -218,9 +218,10 @@ print_cfs_rq(struct seq_file *m, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq); > #define TASK_WAKEKILL 128 > #define TASK_WAKING 256 > #define TASK_PARKED 512 > -#define TASK_STATE_MAX 1024 > +#define TASK_NOLOAD 1024 > +#define TASK_STATE_MAX 2048 > > -#define TASK_STATE_TO_CHAR_STR "RSDTtXZxKWP" > +#define TASK_STATE_TO_CHAR_STR "RSDTtXZxKWPN" > > extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!( > sizeof(TASK_STATE_TO_CHAR_STR)-1 != ilog2(TASK_STATE_MAX)+1)]; > @@ -230,6 +231,8 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!( > #define TASK_STOPPED (TASK_WAKEKILL | __TASK_STOPPED) > #define TASK_TRACED (TASK_WAKEKILL | __TASK_TRACED) > > +#define TASK_IDLE (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_NOLOAD) > + > /* Convenience macros for the sake of wake_up */ > #define TASK_NORMAL (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) > #define TASK_ALL (TASK_NORMAL | __TASK_STOPPED | __TASK_TRACED) > @@ -245,7 +248,8 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!( > ((task->state & (__TASK_STOPPED | __TASK_TRACED)) != 0) > #define task_contributes_to_load(task) \ > ((task->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) != 0 && \ > - (task->flags & PF_FROZEN) == 0) > + (task->flags & PF_FROZEN) == 0 && \ > + (task->state & TASK_NOLOAD) == 0) > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP > > diff --git a/include/trace/events/sched.h b/include/trace/events/sched.h > index 30fedaf3e56a..d57a575fe31f 100644 > --- a/include/trace/events/sched.h > +++ b/include/trace/events/sched.h > @@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_switch, > __print_flags(__entry->prev_state & (TASK_STATE_MAX-1), "|", > { 1, "S"} , { 2, "D" }, { 4, "T" }, { 8, "t" }, > { 16, "Z" }, { 32, "X" }, { 64, "x" }, > - { 128, "K" }, { 256, "W" }, { 512, "P" }) : "R", > + { 128, "K" }, { 256, "W" }, { 512, "P" }, > + { 1024, "N" }) : "R", > __entry->prev_state & TASK_STATE_MAX ? "+" : "", > __entry->next_comm, __entry->next_pid, __entry->next_prio) > );
|  |