On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:06:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> If a task is PI-blocked (blocking on sleeping spinlock) then we don't want to
> schedule a new kworker if we schedule out due to lock contention because !RT
> does not do that as well.
s/as well/either/
> A spinning spinlock disables preemption and a worker
> does not schedule out on lock contention (but spin).
I'm not much liking this; it means that rt_mutex and mutex have
different behaviour, and there are 'normal' rt_mutex users in the tree.
> On RT the RW-semaphore implementation uses an rtmutex so
> tsk_is_pi_blocked() will return true if a task blocks on it. In this case we
> will now start a new worker
I'm confused, by bailing out early it does _NOT_ start a new worker; or
am I reading it wrong?
> which may deadlock if one worker is waiting on
> progress from another worker.
> Since a RW-semaphore starts a new worker on !RT, we should do the same on RT.
>
> XFS is able to trigger this deadlock.
>
> Allow to schedule new worker if the current worker is PI-blocked.
Which contradicts earlier parts of this changelog.
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3945,7 +3945,7 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
>
> static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - if (!tsk->state || tsk_is_pi_blocked(tsk))
> + if (!tsk->state)
> return;
>
> /*
> @@ -3961,6 +3961,9 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(str
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> }
>
> + if (tsk_is_pi_blocked(tsk))
> + return;
> +
> /*
> * If we are going to sleep and we have plugged IO queued,
> * make sure to submit it to avoid deadlocks.
What do we need that clause for? Why is pi_blocked special _at_all_?
