Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:39:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] sched: Add nice value change notifier
Message-ID: <YVq9weHmEGOVsj/p@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210930171552.501553-1-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <20210930171552.501553-2-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <20210930183316.GC4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4aca656d-678f-4d61-38a4-d2e7a8fd89ab@linux.intel.com>
 <5c71ec04-9148-0587-c495-11dbd8f77d67@linux.intel.com>
 <YVct0D9kB1KtrwZ3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <01a968c9-c427-f4c7-44d5-2f47f939f9eb@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01a968c9-c427-f4c7-44d5-2f47f939f9eb@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:12:37AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 01/10/2021 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Hmm? That's for normalize_rt_tasks() only, right? Just don't have it
> > call the notifier in that special case (that's a magic sysrq thing
> > anyway).
> 
> You mean my talk about tasklist_lock? No, it is also on the syscall part I
> am interested in as well. Call chain looks like this:

Urgh, I alwys miss that because it lives outside of sched.. :/

> sys_setpriority()
> {
>   ...
>   rcu_read_lock();
>   read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>   ...
>   set_one_prio()
>     set_user_nice()
>     {
>       ...
>       task_rq_lock();
>         -> my notifier from this RFC [1]
>       task_rq_unlock();
>         -> I can move the notifier here for _some_ improvement [2]
>     }
>   ...
>   read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>   rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> 
> So this RFC had the notifier call chain at [1], which I understood was the
> thing you initially pointed was horrible, being under a scheduler lock.
> 
> I can trivially move it to [2] but that still leaves it under the tasklist
> lock. I don't have a good feel how much better that would be. If not good
> enough then I will look for a smarter solution with less opportunity for
> global impact.

So task_list lock is pretty terrible and effectively unbound already
(just create more tasks etc..) so adding a notifier call there shouldn't
really make it much worse.