Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94567-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <12a20651-5429-43df-88d7-9d01ff6212c6@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:42:10 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/30] sched: handle preempt=voluntary under PREEMPT_AUTO
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
 torvalds@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
 akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
 dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
 juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org,
 mgorman@suse.de, jpoimboe@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jgross@suse.com,
 andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, bristot@kernel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
 glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com,
 mattst88@gmail.com, krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
 David.Laight@aculab.com, richard@nod.at, mjguzik@gmail.com,
 jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
 boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240213055554.1802415-27-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <65e3cd87.050a0220.bc052.7a29@mx.google.com> <87frx514jz.fsf@oracle.com>
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <87frx514jz.fsf@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ankur,

On 3/5/2024 3:11 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> writes:
> 
[..]
>> IMO, just kill 'voluntary' if PREEMPT_AUTO is enabled. There is no
>> 'voluntary' business because
>> 1. The behavior vs =none is to allow higher scheduling class to preempt, it
>> is not about the old voluntary.
> 
> What do you think about folding the higher scheduling class preemption logic
> into preempt=none? As Juri pointed out, prioritization of at least the leftmost
> deadline task needs to be done for correctness.
> 
> (That'll get rid of the current preempt=voluntary model, at least until
> there's a separate use for it.)

Yes I am all in support for that. Its less confusing for the user as well, and
scheduling higher priority class at the next tick for preempt=none sounds good
to me. That is still an improvement for folks using SCHED_DEADLINE for whatever
reason, with a vanilla CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernel. :-P. If we want a new mode
that is more aggressive, it could be added in the future.

>> 2. you are also planning to remove cond_resched()s via this series and leave
>> it to the scheduler right?
> 
> Yeah, under PREEMPT_AUTO, cond_resched() will /almost/ be not there. Gets
> defined to:
> 
> static inline int _cond_resched(void)
> {
>         klp_sched_try_switch();
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> Right now, we need cond_resched() to make timely forward progress while
> doing live-patching.

Cool, got it!

>> Or call it preempt=higher, or something? No one is going to understand the
>> meaning of voluntary the way it is implied here IMHO.
> 
> I don't think there's enough to make it worth adding a new model. For
> now I'm tending towards moving the correctness parts to preempt=none and
> making preempt=voluntary identical to preempt=none.

Got it, sounds good.

> Thanks for the review.

Sure! Thanks for this work. Looking forward to the next series,

 - Joel