On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:46:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:01:34PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > @@ -2038,6 +2038,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > cpu = select_task_rq(p, p->wake_cpu, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> > if (task_cpu(p) != cpu) {
> > wake_flags |= WF_MIGRATED;
> > + psi_ttwu_dequeue(p);
> > set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> > }
> >
>
> > +static inline void psi_ttwu_dequeue(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Is the task being migrated during a wakeup? Make sure to
> > + * deregister its sleep-persistent psi states from the old
> > + * queue, and let psi_enqueue() know it has to requeue.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(p->in_iowait || (p->flags & PF_MEMSTALL))) {
> > + struct rq_flags rf;
> > + struct rq *rq;
> > + int clear = 0;
> > +
> > + if (p->in_iowait)
> > + clear |= TSK_IOWAIT;
> > + if (p->flags & PF_MEMSTALL)
> > + clear |= TSK_MEMSTALL;
> > +
> > + rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> > + update_rq_clock(rq);
> > + psi_task_change(p, rq_clock(rq), clear, 0);
> > + p->sched_psi_wake_requeue = 1;
> > + __task_rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Yeah, no... not happening.
>
> We spend a lot of time to never touch the old rq->lock on wakeups. Mason
> was the one pushing for that, so he should very well know this.
>
> The one cross-cpu atomic (iowait) is already a problem (the whole iowait
> accounting being useless makes it even worse), adding significant remote
> prodding is just really bad.
Also, since all you need is the global number, I don't think you
actually need any of this. See what we do for nr_uninterruptible.
In general I think you want to (re)read loadavg.c some more, and maybe
reuse a bit more of that.
