Re: [PATCH 26/30] sched: handle preempt=voluntary under PREEMPT_AUTO

[Ankur Arora]

Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:15:35PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/7/2024 2:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:42:10PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >> Hi Ankur,
>> >>
>> >> On 3/5/2024 3:11 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>>
>> >> [..]
>> >>>> IMO, just kill 'voluntary' if PREEMPT_AUTO is enabled. There is no
>> >>>> 'voluntary' business because
>> >>>> 1. The behavior vs =none is to allow higher scheduling class to preempt, it
>> >>>> is not about the old voluntary.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do you think about folding the higher scheduling class preemption logic
>> >>> into preempt=none? As Juri pointed out, prioritization of at least the leftmost
>> >>> deadline task needs to be done for correctness.
>> >>>
>> >>> (That'll get rid of the current preempt=voluntary model, at least until
>> >>> there's a separate use for it.)
>> >>
>> >> Yes I am all in support for that. Its less confusing for the user as well, and
>> >> scheduling higher priority class at the next tick for preempt=none sounds good
>> >> to me. That is still an improvement for folks using SCHED_DEADLINE for whatever
>> >> reason, with a vanilla CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernel. :-P. If we want a new mode
>> >> that is more aggressive, it could be added in the future.
>> >
>> > This would be something that happens only after removing cond_resched()
>> > might_sleep() functionality from might_sleep(), correct?
>>
>> Firstly, Maybe I misunderstood Ankur completely. Re-reading his comments above,
>> he seems to be suggesting preempting instantly for higher scheduling CLASSES
>> even for preempt=none mode, without having to wait till the next
>> scheduling-clock interrupt. Not sure if that makes sense to me, I was asking not
>> to treat "higher class" any differently than "higher priority" for preempt=none.
>>
>> And if SCHED_DEADLINE has a problem with that, then it already happens so with
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, so no need special treatment for higher class any
>> more than the treatment given to higher priority within same class. Ankur/Juri?
>>
>> Re: cond_resched(), I did not follow you Paul, why does removing the proposed
>> preempt=voluntary mode (i.e. dropping this patch) have to happen only after
>> cond_resched()/might_sleep() modifications?
>
> Because right now, one large difference between CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
> an CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is that for the latter might_sleep() is a
> preemption point, but not for the former.

True. But, there is no difference between either of those with
PREEMPT_AUTO=y (at least right now).

For (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y),
might_sleep() is:

# define might_resched() do { } while (0)
# define might_sleep() \
        do { __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__); might_resched(); } while (0)

And, cond_resched() for (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y,
DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y):

static inline int _cond_resched(void)
{
        klp_sched_try_switch();
        return 0;
}
#define cond_resched() ({                       \
        __might_resched(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0); \
        _cond_resched();                        \
})

And, no change for (PREEMPT_AUTO=y, PREEMPT_NONE=y, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y).

Thanks
Ankur

> But if might_sleep() becomes debug-only, then there will no longer be
> this difference.