Re: [PATCH v2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()

[Qais Yousef]

On 05/21/24 13:00, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-05-15 23:05:36 [+0100], Qais Yousef wrote:
> > rt_task() checks if a task has RT priority. But depends on your
> > dictionary, this could mean it belongs to RT class, or is a 'realtime'
> > task, which includes RT and DL classes.
> > 
> > Since this has caused some confusion already on discussion [1], it
> > seemed a clean up is due.
> > 
> > I define the usage of rt_task() to be tasks that belong to RT class.
> > Make sure that it returns true only for RT class and audit the users and
> > replace the ones required the old behavior with the new realtime_task()
> > which returns true for RT and DL classes. Introduce similar
> > realtime_prio() to create similar distinction to rt_prio() and update
> > the users that required the old behavior to use the new function.
> > 
> > Move MAX_DL_PRIO to prio.h so it can be used in the new definitions.
> > 
> > Document the functions to make it more obvious what is the difference
> > between them. PI-boosted tasks is a factor that must be taken into
> > account when choosing which function to use.
> > 
> > Rename task_is_realtime() to realtime_task_policy() as the old name is
> > confusing against the new realtime_task().
> 
> I *think* everyone using rt_task() means to include DL tasks. And
> everyone means !SCHED-people since they know when the difference matters.

yes, this makes sense

> 
> > No functional changes were intended.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240506100509.GL40213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > 
> > 	* Use realtime_task_policy() instead task_has_realtime_policy() (Peter)
> > 	* Improve commit message readability about replace some rt_task()
> > 	  users.
> > 
> > v1 discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240514234112.792989-1-qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> >  fs/select.c                       |  2 +-
> 
> fs/bcachefs/six.c
> six_owner_running() has rt_task(). But imho should have realtime_task()
> to consider DL. But I think it is way worse that it has its own locking
> rather than using what everyone else but then again it wouldn't be the
> new hot thing…

I think I missed this one. Converted now. Thanks!

> 
> >  include/linux/ioprio.h            |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/sched/deadline.h    |  6 ++++--
> >  include/linux/sched/prio.h        |  1 +
> >  include/linux/sched/rt.h          | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c          |  4 ++--
> >  kernel/locking/rwsem.c            |  4 ++--
> >  kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h         |  2 +-
> >  kernel/sched/core.c               |  6 +++---
> >  kernel/time/hrtimer.c             |  6 +++---
> >  kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c |  2 +-
> >  mm/page-writeback.c               |  4 ++--
> >  mm/page_alloc.c                   |  2 +-
> >  13 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> …
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > index 70625dff62ce..08b95e0a41ab 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > @@ -1996,7 +1996,7 @@ static void __hrtimer_init_sleeper(struct hrtimer_sleeper *sl,
> >  	 * expiry.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> > -		if (task_is_realtime(current) && !(mode & HRTIMER_MODE_SOFT))
> > +		if (realtime_task_policy(current) && !(mode & HRTIMER_MODE_SOFT))
> >  			mode |= HRTIMER_MODE_HARD;
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ long hrtimer_nanosleep(ktime_t rqtp, const enum hrtimer_mode mode,
> >  	u64 slack;
> >  
> >  	slack = current->timer_slack_ns;
> > -	if (rt_task(current))
> > +	if (realtime_task(current))
> >  		slack = 0;
> >  
> >  	hrtimer_init_sleeper_on_stack(&t, clockid, mode);
> > @@ -2301,7 +2301,7 @@ schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(ktime_t *expires, u64 delta,
> >  	 * Override any slack passed by the user if under
> >  	 * rt contraints.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (rt_task(current))
> > +	if (realtime_task(current))
> >  		delta = 0;
> 
> I know this is just converting what is already here but…
> __hrtimer_init_sleeper() looks at the policy to figure out if the task
> is realtime do decide if should expire in HARD-IRQ context. This is
> correct, a boosted task should not sleep.
> 
> hrtimer_nanosleep() + schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock() is looking at
> priority to decide if slack should be removed. This should also look at
> policy since a boosted task shouldn't sleep.

I have to admit I never dug deep enough into this code. Happy to convert these
users. I'll add that as a separate patch as this is somewhat changing behavior
which this patch intends to do a clean up only.

> 
> In order to be PI-boosted you need to acquire a lock and the only lock
> you can sleep while acquired without generating a warning is a mutex_t
> (or equivalent sleeping lock) on PREEMPT_RT. 

Note we care about the behavior for !PREEMPT_RT. PI issues are important there
too. I assume the fact the PREEMPT_RT changes the locks behavior is what you're
referring to here and not applicable to normal case.


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef

> 
> >  	hrtimer_init_sleeper_on_stack(&t, clock_id, mode);
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c b/kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c
> > index 0469a04a355f..19d737742e29 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c
> > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ probe_wakeup(void *ignore, struct task_struct *p)
> >  	 *  - wakeup_dl handles tasks belonging to sched_dl class only.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (tracing_dl || (wakeup_dl && !dl_task(p)) ||
> > -	    (wakeup_rt && !dl_task(p) && !rt_task(p)) ||
> > +	    (wakeup_rt && !realtime_task(p)) ||
> >  	    (!dl_task(p) && (p->prio >= wakeup_prio || p->prio >= current->prio)))
> >  		return;
> >  
> 
> Sebastian