Re: [RFC][PATCH] CPUSets: Move most calls torebuild_sched_domains() to the workqueue

[Gautham R Shenoy]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:56:49AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> CPUsets: Move most calls to rebuild_sched_domains() to the workqueue
>
> In the current cpusets code the lock nesting between cgroup_mutex and
> cpuhotplug.lock when calling rebuild_sched_domains is inconsistent -
> in the CPU hotplug path cpuhotplug.lock nests outside cgroup_mutex,
> and in all other paths that call rebuild_sched_domains() it nests
> inside.
>
> This patch makes most calls to rebuild_sched_domains() asynchronous
> via the workqueue, which removes the nesting of the two locks in that
> case. In the case of an actual hotplug event, cpuhotplug.lock nests
> outside cgroup_mutex as now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> Note that all I've done with this patch is verify that it compiles
> without warnings; I'm not sure how to trigger a hotplug event to test
> the lock dependencies or verify that scheduler domain support is still
> behaving correctly. Vegard, does this fix the problems that you were
> seeing? Paul/Max, does this still seem sane with regard to scheduler domains?
>

Hi Paul, 

Using a multithreaded workqueue(kevent here) for this is not such a
great idea this,since currently we cannot call
get_online_cpus() from a workitem executed by a multithreaded workqueue.

Can one use a single threaded workqueue here instead ?

Or, better, I think we can ask Oleg to re-submit the patch he had to make
get_online_cpus() safe to be called from within the workqueue. It does
require a special post CPU_DEAD notification, but as it does work the
last time I checked.

>
> kernel/cpuset.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> Index: lockfix-2.6.26-rc5-mm3/kernel/cpuset.c
> ===================================================================
> --- lockfix-2.6.26-rc5-mm3.orig/kernel/cpuset.c
> +++ lockfix-2.6.26-rc5-mm3/kernel/cpuset.c
> @@ -522,13 +522,9 @@ update_domain_attr(struct sched_domain_a
>  * domains when operating in the severe memory shortage situations
>  * that could cause allocation failures below.
>  *
> - * Call with cgroup_mutex held.  May take callback_mutex during
> - * call due to the kfifo_alloc() and kmalloc() calls.  May nest
> - * a call to the get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() pair.
> - * Must not be called holding callback_mutex, because we must not
> - * call get_online_cpus() while holding callback_mutex.  Elsewhere
> - * the kernel nests callback_mutex inside get_online_cpus() calls.
> - * So the reverse nesting would risk an ABBA deadlock.
> + * Call with cgroup_mutex held, and inside get_online_cpus().  May
> + * take callback_mutex during call due to the kfifo_alloc() and
> + * kmalloc() calls.
>  *
>  * The three key local variables below are:
>  *    q  - a kfifo queue of cpuset pointers, used to implement a
> @@ -689,9 +685,7 @@ restart:
>
> rebuild:
> 	/* Have scheduler rebuild sched domains */
> -	get_online_cpus();
> 	partition_sched_domains(ndoms, doms, dattr);
> -	put_online_cpus();
>
> done:
> 	if (q && !IS_ERR(q))
> @@ -701,6 +695,21 @@ done:
> 	/* Don't kfree(dattr) -- partition_sched_domains() does that. */
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Due to the need to nest cgroup_mutex inside cpuhotplug.lock, most
> + * of our invocations of rebuild_sched_domains() are done
> + * asynchronously via the workqueue
> + */
> +static void delayed_rebuild_sched_domains(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	get_online_cpus();
> +	cgroup_lock();
> +	rebuild_sched_domains();
> +	cgroup_unlock();
> +	put_online_cpus();
> +}
> +static DECLARE_WORK(rebuild_sched_domains_work, delayed_rebuild_sched_domains);
> +
> static inline int started_after_time(struct task_struct *t1,
> 				     struct timespec *time,
> 				     struct task_struct *t2)
> @@ -853,7 +862,7 @@ static int update_cpumask(struct cpuset 		return 
> retval;
>
> 	if (is_load_balanced)
> -		rebuild_sched_domains();
> +		schedule_work(&rebuild_sched_domains_work);
> 	return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1080,7 +1089,7 @@ static int update_relax_domain_level(str
>
> 	if (val != cs->relax_domain_level) {
> 		cs->relax_domain_level = val;
> -		rebuild_sched_domains();
> +		schedule_work(&rebuild_sched_domains_work);
> 	}
>
> 	return 0;
> @@ -1121,7 +1130,7 @@ static int update_flag(cpuset_flagbits_t
> 	mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
>
> 	if (cpus_nonempty && balance_flag_changed)
> -		rebuild_sched_domains();
> +		schedule_work(&rebuild_sched_domains_work);
>
> 	return 0;
> }
> @@ -1929,6 +1938,7 @@ static void scan_for_empty_cpusets(const
>
> static void common_cpu_mem_hotplug_unplug(void)
> {
> +	get_online_cpus();
> 	cgroup_lock();
>
> 	top_cpuset.cpus_allowed = cpu_online_map;
> @@ -1942,6 +1952,7 @@ static void common_cpu_mem_hotplug_unplu
> 	rebuild_sched_domains();
>
> 	cgroup_unlock();
> +	put_online_cpus();
> }
>
> /*
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
Thanks and Regards
gautham
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/