Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:57:40 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth
Message-ID: <20221116095740.GA29859@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20221026224449.214839-1-joshdon@google.com>
 <20221102165922.GA31833@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <CABk29Nvw8XMrc2_9CAUZb=rO_vddGjsfZ1s3mRQyShANDhtZnw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABk29Nvw8XMrc2_9CAUZb=rO_vddGjsfZ1s3mRQyShANDhtZnw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 07:01:31PM -0800, Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
> After more thought, I realized that we can't reuse the throttled_list
> list_head, since that would potentially break the lockless traversal
> of a concurrent list_for_each_entry_rcu() (ie. if we removed the
> element from the throttled list and then added it to the CSD list).

I see, the concurrent RCU traversal is a valid point for the two heads.

What does it mean for SCHED_WARN_ON in __unthrottle_cfs_rq_async()?

IIUC, if the concurrency of cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq list is
expected (hence I'm not sure about the SCHED_WARN_ON), then it may
happen that __unthrottle_cfs_rq_async is called on cfs_rq that's already
on rq->cfsb_csd_list (there's still rq lock but it's only help inside
cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq iteration).

Thanks,
Michal

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCY3S0AwAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
uXbpAQCLqagcMyDb165HxJhOfjWGUcIvJuvulqJGwtktzGZyBwD/YOkxd/uCb5bF
WQXMRrjyXFnOnEtWRMsY6VbAGWXdkg8=
=kRZ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--