Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:24:26 +0800 | Subject | Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/core: Avoid obvious double update_rq_clock warning | From | Hao Jia <> |
| |
On 2022/4/29 Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 27/04/2022 10:00, Hao Jia wrote: > > [...] > > LGTM, comments are only nit-picks. > >> Since we directly use raw_spin_rq_lock() to acquire rq lock instead of >> rq_lock(), there is no corresponding change to rq->clock_update_flags. >> In particular, we have obtained the rq lock of other cores, > > s/cores/CPUs, with SMT, a core can have multiple (logical) CPUs.
Thanks for your review comments. I will do it in patch v4. Thanks.
> > [...] > >> So we need to clear RQCF_UPDATED of rq->clock_update_flags synchronously >> to avoid the WARN_DOUBLE_CLOCK warning. > > Why you mention `synchronously` here? Isn't this obvious? (1)
I will do it in patch v4. Thanks.
> > [...] > >> @@ -1833,6 +1833,7 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int flags) >> static void migrate_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu __maybe_unused) >> { >> struct rq *rq; >> + struct rq_flags rf; > > - struct rq *rq; > struct rq_flags rf; > + struct rq *rq; > > Use reverse fir tree order for variable declarations. > (./Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst)
I will do it in patch v4. Thanks.
> > [...] > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG >> +/* >> + * In double_lock_balance()/double_rq_lock(), we use raw_spin_rq_lock() to acquire >> + * rq lock instead of rq_lock(). So at the end of these two functions we need to >> + * call double_rq_clock_clear_update() synchronously to clear RQCF_UPDATED of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (1) > >> + * rq->clock_update_flags to avoid the WARN_DOUBLE_CLOCK warning. >> + */ >> +static inline void double_rq_clock_clear_update(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2) >> +{ >> + rq1->clock_update_flags &= (RQCF_REQ_SKIP|RQCF_ACT_SKIP); >> + /* >> + * If CONFIG_SMP is not defined, rq1 and rq2 are the same, >> + * so we just clear RQCF_UPDATED one of them. >> + */ > > Maybe shorter: > > /* rq1 == rq2 for !CONFIG_SMP, so just clear RQCF_UPDATED once. */
I will do it in patch v4. Thanks. > > [...] > >> @@ -2543,14 +2564,15 @@ static inline int _double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest) >> __acquires(busiest->lock) >> __acquires(this_rq->lock) >> { >> - if (__rq_lockp(this_rq) == __rq_lockp(busiest)) >> - return 0; >> - >> - if (likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest))) >> + if (__rq_lockp(this_rq) == __rq_lockp(busiest) || >> + likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest))) { > > indention: > > if (__rq_lockp(this_rq) == __rq_lockp(busiest) || > - likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest))) { > + likely(raw_spin_rq_trylock(busiest))) {
Thanks again for your review and suggestion. I will do it in patch v4. Thanks.
> > [...] > > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> > > Tested on Arm64 Juno with mainline & preempt-rt (linux-5.17.y-rt).
|  |