From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org
Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance()
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:10:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1391728237-4441-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1391728237-4441-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
The scheduler main function 'schedule()' checks if there are no more tasks
on the runqueue. Then it checks if a task should be pulled in the current
runqueue in idle_balance() assuming it will go to idle otherwise.
But the idle_balance() releases the rq->lock in order to lookup in the sched
domains and takes the lock again right after. That opens a window where
another cpu may put a task in our runqueue, so we won't go to idle but
we have filled the idle_stamp, thinking we will.
This patch closes the window by checking if the runqueue has been modified
but without pulling a task after taking the lock again, so we won't go to idle
right after in the __schedule() function.
Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 428bc9d..5ebc681 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6589,6 +6589,13 @@ void idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+ /*
+ * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock.
+ * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
+ */
+ if (this_rq->nr_running && !pulled_task)
+ return;
+
if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
/*
* We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
--
1.7.9.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-06 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-06 23:10 [PATCH V2 0/3] sched: idle_balance() cleanup and fix Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-06 23:10 ` [PATCH V2 1/3] sched: Remove cpu parameter for idle_balance() Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 7:14 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-06 23:10 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2014-02-10 9:24 ` [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance() Preeti Murthy
2014-02-11 11:11 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 7:45 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-13 10:10 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-02-13 10:22 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 7:46 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-06 23:10 ` [PATCH V2 3/3] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-10 10:04 ` Preeti Murthy
2014-02-11 12:07 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 10:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-02-13 7:53 ` Alex Shi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1391728237-4441-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome