Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:41:11 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement shared wakequeue in CFS |
| |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:20:04AM -0500, David Vernet wrote: > +struct swqueue { > + struct list_head list; > + spinlock_t lock; > +} ____cacheline_aligned; > + > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > +static struct swqueue *rq_swqueue(struct rq *rq) > +{ > + return rq->cfs.swqueue; > +} > + > +static struct task_struct *swqueue_pull_task(struct swqueue *swqueue) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + struct task_struct *p; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&swqueue->lock, flags); > + p = list_first_entry_or_null(&swqueue->list, struct task_struct, > + swqueue_node); > + if (p) > + list_del_init(&p->swqueue_node); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&swqueue->lock, flags); > + > + return p; > +} > + > +static void swqueue_enqueue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int enq_flags) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + struct swqueue *swqueue; > + bool task_migrated = enq_flags & ENQUEUE_MIGRATED; > + bool task_wakeup = enq_flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP; > + > + /* > + * Only enqueue the task in the shared wakequeue if: > + * > + * - SWQUEUE is enabled > + * - The task is on the wakeup path > + * - The task wasn't purposefully migrated to the current rq by > + * select_task_rq() > + * - The task isn't pinned to a specific CPU > + */ > + if (!task_wakeup || task_migrated || p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1) > + return; > + > + swqueue = rq_swqueue(rq); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&swqueue->lock, flags); > + list_add_tail(&p->swqueue_node, &swqueue->list); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&swqueue->lock, flags); > +} > + > static int swqueue_pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf) > { > - return 0; > + struct swqueue *swqueue; > + struct task_struct *p = NULL; > + struct rq *src_rq; > + struct rq_flags src_rf; > + int ret; > + > + swqueue = rq_swqueue(rq); > + if (!list_empty(&swqueue->list)) > + p = swqueue_pull_task(swqueue); > + > + if (!p) > + return 0; > + > + rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf); > + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq); > + > + src_rq = task_rq_lock(p, &src_rf); > + > + if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && !task_on_cpu(rq, p)) > + src_rq = migrate_task_to(src_rq, &src_rf, p, cpu_of(rq)); > + > + if (src_rq->cpu != rq->cpu) > + ret = 1; > + else > + ret = -1; > + > + task_rq_unlock(src_rq, p, &src_rf); > + > + raw_spin_rq_lock(rq); > + rq_repin_lock(rq, rf); > + > + return ret; > } > > static void swqueue_remove_task(struct task_struct *p) > -{} > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + struct swqueue *swqueue; > + > + if (!list_empty(&p->swqueue_node)) { > + swqueue = rq_swqueue(task_rq(p)); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&swqueue->lock, flags); > + list_del_init(&p->swqueue_node); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&swqueue->lock, flags); > + } > +} > > /* > * For asym packing, by default the lower numbered CPU has higher priority.
*sigh*... pretty much all, if not all of this is called with rq->lock held. So why the irqsave and big fat fail for using spinlock :-(
| |