On 07/14, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > /* Affinity changed (again). */
> > > if (!cpu_isset(dest_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > on_rq = p->se.on_rq;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > > + if (!on_rq && task_thread_info(p)->migrate_count)
> > > + goto out;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > This means that move_task_off_dead_cpu() will spin until the task will be scheduled
> > on the dead CPU. Given that we hold tasklist_lock and irqs are disabled, this may
> > never happen.
> >
>
> Yes. My idea to fix this issue is the following:
>
> If a thread has non zero migrate_count, we should still move it to a
> different CPU upon hotplug cpu removal, even if this thread resists
> migration. Care should be taken to send _all_ such threads to the _same_
> CPU so they don't race for the per-cpu ressources. Does it make sense ?
>
> We would have to keep the CPU affinity of the threads running on the
> wrong CPU until they end their migrate disabled section, so that we can
> put them back on their original CPU if it goes back online, otherwise we
> could end up with concurrent per-cpu variables accesses.
Well, this means that migrate_disable() doesn't guarantee a stable
smp_processor_id(), not good.
> > > @@ -4891,10 +4957,22 @@
> > > list_del_init(head->next);
> > >
> > > spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > > - __migrate_task(req->task, cpu, req->dest_cpu);
> > > + migrated = __migrate_task(req->task, cpu, req->dest_cpu);
> > > local_irq_enable();
> > > -
> > > - complete(&req->done);
> > > + if (!migrated) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the process has not been migrated, let it run
> > > + * until it reaches a migration_check() so it can
> > > + * wake us up.
> > > + */
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
> > > + head = &rq->migration_queue;
> > > + list_add(&req->list, head);
> > > + set_tsk_thread_flag(req->task, TIF_NEED_MIGRATE);
> > > + spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
> > > + wake_up_process(req->task);
> > > + } else
> > > + complete(&req->done);
> >
> > I guess this is migration_thread(). The wake_up_process(req->task) looks strange,
> > why? It can't help if the task waits for the event/mutex.
> >
>
> Hrm, the idea was to wake up the thread that is in the migrate disabled
> section, which is what I seem to do req->task points to the process we
> try to migrate. We poke it like this until is ends its critical
> section.
But this can only waste CPU, nothing more, no? Suppose that req->thread
sleeps waiting for the mutex. You can wake it up, and it will call schedule()
again.
This can help if req->thread does something like schedule_timeout(), but
I don't think this is a common case.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
