Commit 8643cda5 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

sched/core, locking: Document Program-Order guarantees

These are some notes on the scheduler locking and how it provides
program order guarantees on SMP systems.

( This commit is in the locking tree, because the new documentation
  refers to a newly introduced locking primitive. )
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent b3e0b1b6
......@@ -1905,6 +1905,97 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}
/*
* Notes on Program-Order guarantees on SMP systems.
*
* MIGRATION
*
* The basic program-order guarantee on SMP systems is that when a task [t]
* migrates, all its activity on its old cpu [c0] happens-before any subsequent
* execution on its new cpu [c1].
*
* For migration (of runnable tasks) this is provided by the following means:
*
* A) UNLOCK of the rq(c0)->lock scheduling out task t
* B) migration for t is required to synchronize *both* rq(c0)->lock and
* rq(c1)->lock (if not at the same time, then in that order).
* C) LOCK of the rq(c1)->lock scheduling in task
*
* Transitivity guarantees that B happens after A and C after B.
* Note: we only require RCpc transitivity.
* Note: the cpu doing B need not be c0 or c1
*
* Example:
*
* CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
*
* LOCK rq(0)->lock
* sched-out X
* sched-in Y
* UNLOCK rq(0)->lock
*
* LOCK rq(0)->lock // orders against CPU0
* dequeue X
* UNLOCK rq(0)->lock
*
* LOCK rq(1)->lock
* enqueue X
* UNLOCK rq(1)->lock
*
* LOCK rq(1)->lock // orders against CPU2
* sched-out Z
* sched-in X
* UNLOCK rq(1)->lock
*
*
* BLOCKING -- aka. SLEEP + WAKEUP
*
* For blocking we (obviously) need to provide the same guarantee as for
* migration. However the means are completely different as there is no lock
* chain to provide order. Instead we do:
*
* 1) smp_store_release(X->on_cpu, 0)
* 2) smp_cond_acquire(!X->on_cpu)
*
* Example:
*
* CPU0 (schedule) CPU1 (try_to_wake_up) CPU2 (schedule)
*
* LOCK rq(0)->lock LOCK X->pi_lock
* dequeue X
* sched-out X
* smp_store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
*
* smp_cond_acquire(!X->on_cpu);
* X->state = WAKING
* set_task_cpu(X,2)
*
* LOCK rq(2)->lock
* enqueue X
* X->state = RUNNING
* UNLOCK rq(2)->lock
*
* LOCK rq(2)->lock // orders against CPU1
* sched-out Z
* sched-in X
* UNLOCK rq(2)->lock
*
* UNLOCK X->pi_lock
* UNLOCK rq(0)->lock
*
*
* However; for wakeups there is a second guarantee we must provide, namely we
* must observe the state that lead to our wakeup. That is, not only must our
* task observe its own prior state, it must also observe the stores prior to
* its wakeup.
*
* This means that any means of doing remote wakeups must order the CPU doing
* the wakeup against the CPU the task is going to end up running on. This,
* however, is already required for the regular Program-Order guarantee above,
* since the waking CPU is the one issueing the ACQUIRE (smp_cond_acquire).
*
*/
/**
* try_to_wake_up - wake up a thread
* @p: the thread to be awakened
......
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