On 08/04/2014 10:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:25:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:50:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> OK, I will bite...
>>>
>>> What kinds of tasks are on a runqueue, but neither ->on_cpu nor
>>> PREEMPT_ACTIVE?
>>
>> Userspace tasks, they don't necessarily get PREEMPT_ACTIVE when
>> preempted. Now obviously you're not _that_ interested in userspace tasks
>> for this, so that might be ok.
>>
>> But the main point was, you cannot use ->on_cpu or PREEMPT_ACTIVE
>> without holding rq->lock.
>
> Hmm, maybe you can, we have the context switch in between setting
> ->on_cpu and clearing PREEMPT_ACTIVE and vice-versa.
>
> The context switch (obviously) provides a full barrier, so we might be
> able to -- with careful consideration -- read these two separate values
> and construct something usable from them.
>
> Something like:
>
> task_preempt_count(tsk) & PREEMPT_ACTIVE
the @tsk is running on_cpu, the above result is false.
> smp_rmb();
> tsk->on_cpu
now the @tsk is preempted, the above result also is false.
so it is useless if we fetch the preempt_count and on_cpu in two
separated
instructions. Maybe it would work if we also take tsk->nivcsw in consideration.
(I just noticed that tsk->n[i]vcsw are the version numbers for the tsk->on_cpu)
bool task_on_cpu_or_preempted(tsk)
{
unsigned long saved_nivcsw;
saved_nivcsw = task->nivcsw;
if (tsk->on_cpu)
return true;
smp_rmb();
if (task_preempt_count(tsk) & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)
return true;
smp_rmb();
if (tsk->on_cpu || task->nivcsw != saved_nivcsw)
return true;
return false;
}
>
> And because we set PREEMPT_ACTIVE before clearing on_cpu, this should
> race the right way (err towards the inclusive side).
>
> Obviously that wants a big fat comment...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
