Commit 28156108 authored by Tianchen Ding's avatar Tianchen Ding Committed by Peter Zijlstra

sched: Fix the check of nr_running at queue wakelist

The commit 2ebb1771 ("sched/core: Offload wakee task activation if it
the wakee is descheduling") checked rq->nr_running <= 1 to avoid task
stacking when WF_ON_CPU.

Per the ordering of writes to p->on_rq and p->on_cpu, observing p->on_cpu
(WF_ON_CPU) in ttwu_queue_cond() implies !p->on_rq, IOW p has gone through
the deactivate_task() in __schedule(), thus p has been accounted out of
rq->nr_running. As such, the task being the only runnable task on the rq
implies reading rq->nr_running == 0 at that point.

The benchmark result is in [1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/e34de686-4e85-bde1-9f3c-9bbc86b38627@linux.alibaba.com/Suggested-by: default avatarValentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarTianchen Ding <dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarValentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220608233412.327341-2-dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com
parent 792b9f65
......@@ -3829,8 +3829,12 @@ static inline bool ttwu_queue_cond(int cpu, int wake_flags)
* CPU then use the wakelist to offload the task activation to
* the soon-to-be-idle CPU as the current CPU is likely busy.
* nr_running is checked to avoid unnecessary task stacking.
*
* Note that we can only get here with (wakee) p->on_rq=0,
* p->on_cpu can be whatever, we've done the dequeue, so
* the wakee has been accounted out of ->nr_running.
*/
if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running)
return true;
return false;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment