On 04/09/2018 11:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

(I know there is a new version out; but I was reading through this to
catch up with the discussion)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:43:09AM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
+static inline int sd_overutilized(struct sched_domain *sd)
+{
+       return READ_ONCE(sd->shared->overutilized);
+}
+
+static inline void update_overutilized_status(struct rq *rq)
+{
+       struct sched_domain *sd;
+
+       rcu_read_lock();
+       sd = rcu_dereference(rq->sd);
+       if (sd && !sd_overutilized(sd) && cpu_overutilized(rq->cpu))
+               WRITE_ONCE(sd->shared->overutilized, 1);
+       rcu_read_unlock();
+}
+#else

I think you ought to go have a look at the end of
kernel/sched/topology.c:sd_init(), where it says:

        /*
         * For all levels sharing cache; connect a sched_domain_shared
         * instance.
         */
        if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) {
                sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sds, sd_id);
                atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
                atomic_set(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus, sd_weight);
        }

Because if I read all this correctly, your code assumes sd->shared
exists unconditionally, while the quoted bit only ensures it does so <=
LLC.


But the patch changes this part further down.

diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
index 64cc564f5255..c8b7c7665ab2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
@@ -1184,15 +1184,11 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
                sd->idle_idx = 1;
        }

-       /*
-        * For all levels sharing cache; connect a sched_domain_shared
-        * instance.
-        */
-       if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) {
-               sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sds, sd_id);
-               atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
+       sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sds, sd_id);
+       atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
+
+       if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
                atomic_set(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus, sd_weight);
-       }

Reply via email to