On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:46:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> @@ -3097,13 +3126,21 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct 
> *work)
>       /*
>        * Run the remote tick once per second (1Hz). This arbitrary
>        * frequency is large enough to avoid overload but short enough
> -      * to keep scheduler internal stats reasonably up to date.
> +      * to keep scheduler internal stats reasonably up to date.  But
> +      * first update state to reflect hotplug activity if required.
>        */
> +     os = atomic_read(&twork->state);
> +     if (os) {
> +             WARN_ON_ONCE(os != TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINING);
> +             if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&twork->state))
> +                     return;

Using inc makes me a bit nervous here. If we do so, we should somewhow
make sure that we never exceed a value higher than TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE
by accident.

atomic_xchg() is probably a bit costlier but also safer as it allows
us to check both the old and the new value. That path shouldn't be critically 
fast
after all.

> +     }
>       queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, dwork, HZ);
>  }
>  
>  static void sched_tick_start(int cpu)
>  {
> +     int os;
>       struct tick_work *twork;
>  
>       if (housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_TICK))
> @@ -3112,15 +3149,20 @@ static void sched_tick_start(int cpu)
>       WARN_ON_ONCE(!tick_work_cpu);
>  
>       twork = per_cpu_ptr(tick_work_cpu, cpu);
> -     twork->cpu = cpu;
> -     INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&twork->work, sched_tick_remote);
> -     queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &twork->work, HZ);
> +     os = atomic_xchg(&twork->state, TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);
> +     WARN_ON_ONCE(os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);

See if we use atomic_inc(), we would need to also WARN(os > 
TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE).

> +     if (os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE) {
> +             twork->cpu = cpu;
> +             INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&twork->work, sched_tick_remote);
> +             queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &twork->work, HZ);
> +     }
>  }

Thanks.

Reply via email to