Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe function

[Wander Lairson Costa]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47 AM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30/01/23 08:49, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:55 PM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 23/01/23 14:24, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> >> > Therefore (if I am correct in my assumption), it would make sense for
> >> > only some call sites to pay the overhead price for it. But this is
> >> > just a guess, and I have no evidence to support my claim.
> >>
> >> My worry here is that it's easy to miss problematic callgraphs, and it's
> >> potentially easy for new ones to creep in. Having a solution within
> >> put_task_struct() itself would prevent that.
> >>
> >
> > We could add a WARN_ON statement in put_task_struct() to detect such cases.
> >
>
> Anyone running their kernel with DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP should be able to
> detect misuse, but it doesn't change that some callgraphs will only
> materialize under certain hardware/configuration combos.
>

If we put a WARN_ON in put_task_struct(), we catch cases where the
reference count didn't reach zero.

> >> Another thing, if you look at release_task_stack(), it either caches the
> >> outgoing stack for later use, or frees it via RCU (regardless of
> >> PREEMPT_RT). Perhaps we could follow that and just always punt the freeing
> >> of the task struct to RCU?
> >>
> >
> > That's a point. Do you mean doing that even for !PREEMPT_RT?
>
> Could be worth a try?

Sure. But I would do it only for PREEMPT_RT.

> I think because of the cache thing the task stack is
> a bit less aggressive wrt RCU callback processing, but at a quick glance I
> don't see any fundamental reason why the task_struct itself can't be given
> the same treatment.
>

Any idea about tests to catch performance regressions?

I