From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: missing locking in sched_domains code
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:09:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080428070946.GA4507@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080427183926.acb66fff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 06:39:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:12:24 +0200 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/cpuset.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/cpuset.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/cpuset.c
> > @@ -684,7 +684,9 @@ restart:
> > rebuild:
> > /* Have scheduler rebuild sched domains */
> > get_online_cpus();
> > + mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > partition_sched_domains(ndoms, doms, dattr);
> > + mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > put_online_cpus();
> >
>
> It seems a bit fragile to take this lock in the caller without even adding
> a comment at the callee site which documents the new locking rule.
>
> It would be more robust to take the lock within partition_sched_domains().
>
> partition_sched_domains() already covers itself with lock_doms_cur(). Can
> we take that in arch_reinit_sched_domains() rather than adding the new lock?
I think you meant taking it in partition_sched_domains? But anyway, I moved
it all over to sched.c. So here's the new patch. Shorter and doesn't export
a new lock :)
Subject: [PATCH] sched: fix sched_domains locking
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Concurrent calls to detach_destroy_domains and arch_init_sched_domains
were prevented by the old scheduler subsystem cpu hotplug mutex. When
this got converted to get_online_cpus() the locking got broken.
Unlike before now several processes can concurrently enter the critical
sections that were protected by the old lock.
So add a new sched_domains_mutex which protects these sections again.
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -7730,6 +7730,12 @@ static int dattrs_equal(struct sched_dom
}
/*
+ * Protects against concurrent calls to detach_destroy_domains
+ * and arch_init_sched_domains.
+ */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);
+
+/*
* Partition sched domains as specified by the 'ndoms_new'
* cpumasks in the array doms_new[] of cpumasks. This compares
* doms_new[] to the current sched domain partitioning, doms_cur[].
@@ -7756,7 +7762,8 @@ void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_n
int i, j;
lock_doms_cur();
-
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
+
/* always unregister in case we don't destroy any domains */
unregister_sched_domain_sysctl();
@@ -7804,6 +7811,7 @@ match2:
register_sched_domain_sysctl();
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
unlock_doms_cur();
}
@@ -7813,8 +7821,10 @@ int arch_reinit_sched_domains(void)
int err;
get_online_cpus();
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
detach_destroy_domains(&cpu_online_map);
err = arch_init_sched_domains(&cpu_online_map);
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
put_online_cpus();
return err;
@@ -7932,10 +7942,12 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
BUG_ON(sched_group_nodes_bycpu == NULL);
#endif
get_online_cpus();
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
arch_init_sched_domains(&cpu_online_map);
cpus_andnot(non_isolated_cpus, cpu_possible_map, cpu_isolated_map);
if (cpus_empty(non_isolated_cpus))
cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), non_isolated_cpus);
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
put_online_cpus();
/* XXX: Theoretical race here - CPU may be hotplugged now */
hotcpu_notifier(update_sched_domains, 0);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-28 7:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-27 21:12 Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 1:39 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-28 7:09 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2008-04-28 7:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-28 7:28 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-28 7:52 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 8:11 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-28 8:49 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 8:57 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-28 9:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 9:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-28 9:33 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-04-28 12:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-28 13:13 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20080428070946.GA4507@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com \
--to=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
/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