On 4/4/19 3:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>> That is not entirely the scenario I talked about, but *groan*.
>>
>> So what I meant was:
>>
>>      CPU-0                                                   CPU-n
>>
>>      __schedule()
>>        local_irq_disable()
>>
>>        ...
>>          deactivate_task(prev);
>>
>>                                                              
>> try_to_wake_up(@p)
>>                                                                ...
>>                                                                
>> smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL);
>>
>>        <PMI>
>>          ..
>>          perf_event_disable_inatomic()
>>            event->pending_disable = 1;
>>            irq_work_queue() /* self-IPI */
>>        </PMI>
>>
>>        context_switch()
>>          prepare_task_switch()
>>            perf_event_task_sched_out()
>>              // the above chain that clears pending_disable
>>
>>          finish_task_switch()
>>            finish_task()
>>              smp_store_release(prev->on_cpu, 0);
>>                                                                /* 
>> finally.... */
>>                                                              // take woken
>>                                                              // 
>> context_switch to @p
>>            finish_lock_switch()
>>              raw_spin_unlock_irq()
>>              /* w00t, IRQs enabled, self-IPI time */
>>              <self-IPI>
>>                perf_pending_event()
>>                  // event->pending_disable == 0
>>              </self-IPI>
>>
>>
>> What you're suggesting, is that the time between:
>>
>>   smp_store_release(prev->on_cpu, 0);
>>
>> and
>>
>>   <self-IPI>
>>
>> on CPU-0 is sufficient for CPU-n to context switch to the task, enable
>> the event there, trigger a PMI that calls perf_event_disable_inatomic()
>> _again_ (this would mean irq_work_queue() failing, which we don't check)
>> (and schedule out again, although that's not required).
>>
>> This being virt that might actually be possible if (v)CPU-0 takes a nap
>> I suppose.
>>
>> Let me think about this a little more...
> 
> Does the below cure things? It's not exactly pretty, but it could just
> do the trick.
> 

Thanks a lot for the patch, I have built a new kernel and let it run over the 
week end.

s390 does not have a PMI, all interrupts (including the measurement interrupts 
from 
the PMU) are normal, maskable interrupts.


-- 
Thomas Richter, Dept 3252, IBM s390 Linux Development, Boeblingen, Germany
--
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Matthias Hartmann
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 
243294

Reply via email to