From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:19:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160405091954.GI3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57037974.1020002@redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:38:12PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 2016/04/02 at 05:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:34:24PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> >
> >>>> I checked the code, currently only deadline accesses the
> >>>> pi_waiters/pi_waiters_leftmost
> >>>> without pi_lock held via rt_mutex_get_top_task(), other cases all have
> >>>> pi_lock held.
> >> Any better ideas is welcome.
> > Something like the below _might_ work; but its late and I haven't looked
> > at the PI code in a while. This basically caches a pointer to the top
> > waiter task in the running task_struct, under pi_lock and rq->lock, and
> > therefore we can use it with only rq->lock held.
> >
> > Since the task is blocked, and cannot unblock without taking itself from
> > the block chain -- which would cause rt_mutex_setprio() to set another
> > top waiter task, the lifetime rules should be good.
>
> In rt_mutex_slowunlock(), we release pi_lock and and wait_lock first, then
> wake up the top waiter, then call rt_mutex_adjust_prio(), so there is a small
> window without any lock or irq disabled between the top waiter wake up
> and rt_mutex_adjust_prio(), which can cause problems.
That is rt_mutex_fastunlock()'s:
bool deboost = slowfs(lock, &wake_q); /* -> rt_mutex_slowunlock() */
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
if (deboost)
rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
(and the IRQ enabled is irrelevant, SMP can race regardless)
> For example, before calling rt_mutex_adjust_prio() to adjust the cached pointer,
> if current is preempted and the waken top waiter exited, after that, the task is
> back, and it may enter enqueue_task_dl() before entering rt_mutex_adjust_prio(),
> where the cached pointer is updated, so it will access a stale cached pointer.
Hmm, so I would argue that that is a bug in any case. Its an effective
priority 'leak', we should deboost before letting the booster run again.
But it looks like a simple fix, simply call wake_up_q() after the
deboost. The wake_q has a reference on the task so it cannot go away,
which ensures any dereferences from within the DL code must still be
valid.
Or did I miss something (again) ? :-)
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 3e746607abe5..36eb232bd29f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1390,11 +1390,11 @@ rt_mutex_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
} else {
bool deboost = slowfn(lock, &wake_q);
- wake_up_q(&wake_q);
-
/* Undo pi boosting if necessary: */
if (deboost)
rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-01 11:00 Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 12:23 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 13:34 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 21:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-02 10:19 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05 8:38 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-04-05 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 10:48 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05 11:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 16:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 18:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 18:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 19:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 19:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-09 3:27 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-09 3:25 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-09 13:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-10 8:22 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-12 3:08 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-12 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-13 2:13 ` Xunlei Pang
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=20160405091954.GI3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=xlpang@redhat.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