IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The recent commit:
c6e7bd7afa ("sched/core: Optimize ttwu() spinning on p->on_cpu")
moved these lines in ttwu():
p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);
p->state = TASK_WAKING;
up before:
smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL);
into the 'p->on_rq == 0' block, with the thinking that once we hit
schedule() the current task cannot change it's ->state anymore. And
while this is true, it is both incorrect and flawed.
It is incorrect in that we need at least an ACQUIRE on 'p->on_rq == 0'
to avoid weak hardware from re-ordering things for us. This can fairly
easily be achieved by relying on the control-dependency already in
place.
The second problem, which makes the flaw in the original argument, is
that while schedule() will not change prev->state, it will read it a
number of times (arguably too many times since it's marked volatile).
The previous condition 'p->on_cpu == 0' was sufficient because that
indicates schedule() has completed, and will no longer read
prev->state. So now the trick is to make this same true for the (much)
earlier 'prev->on_rq == 0' case.
Furthermore, in order to make the ordering stick, the 'prev->on_rq = 0'
assignment needs to he a RELEASE, but adding additional ordering to
schedule() is an unwelcome proposition at the best of times, doubly so
for mere accounting.
Luckily we can push the prev->state load up before rq->lock, with the
only caveat that we then have to re-read the state after. However, we
know that if it changed, we no longer have to worry about the blocking
path. This gives us the required ordering, if we block, we did the
prev->state load before an (effective) smp_mb() and the p->on_rq store
needs not change.
With this we end up with the effective ordering:
LOAD p->state LOAD-ACQUIRE p->on_rq == 0
MB
STORE p->on_rq, 0 STORE p->state, TASK_WAKING
which ensures the TASK_WAKING store happens after the prev->state
load, and all is well again.
Fixes: c6e7bd7afa ("sched/core: Optimize ttwu() spinning on p->on_cpu")
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Reported-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Tested-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200707102957.GN117543@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
dbfb089d36