From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: John Keeping <john@metanate.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/rt: Plug rt_mutex_setprio() vs push_rt_task() race
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 19:40:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220120194037.650433-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com> (raw)
John reported that push_rt_task() can end up invoking
find_lowest_rq(rq->curr) when curr is not an RT task (in this case a CFS
one), which causes mayhem down convert_prio().
This can happen when current gets demoted to e.g. CFS when releasing an
rt_mutex, and the local CPU gets hit with an rto_push_work irqwork before
getting the chance to reschedule. Exactly who triggers this work isn't
entirely clear to me - switched_from_rt() only invokes rt_queue_pull_task()
if there are no RT tasks on the local RQ, which means the local CPU can't
be in the rto_mask.
My current suspected sequence is something along the lines of the below,
with the demoted task being current.
mark_wakeup_next_waiter()
rt_mutex_adjust_prio()
rt_mutex_setprio() // deboost originally-CFS task
check_class_changed()
switched_from_rt() // Only rt_queue_pull_task() if !rq->rt.rt_nr_running
switched_to_fair() // Sets need_resched
__balance_callbacks() // if pull_rt_task(), tell_cpu_to_push() can't select local CPU per the above
raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq)
// need_resched is set, so task_woken_rt() can't
// invoke push_rt_tasks(). Best I can come up with is
// local CPU has rt_nr_migratory >= 2 after the demotion, so stays
// in the rto_mask, and then:
<some other CPU running rto_push_irq_work_func() queues rto_push_work on this CPU>
push_rt_task()
// breakage follows here as rq->curr is CFS
Move an existing check to check rq->curr vs the next pushable task's
priority before getting anywhere near find_lowest_rq(). While at it, add an
explicit sched_class of rq->curr check prior to invoking
find_lowest_rq(rq->curr).
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/Yb3vXx3DcqVOi+EA@donbot
Fixes: a7c81556ec4d ("sched: Fix migrate_disable() vs rt/dl balancing")
Reported-by: John Keeping <john@metanate.com>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
---
kernel/sched/rt.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 7b4f4fbbb404..48fc8c04b038 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -2026,6 +2026,16 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
return 0;
retry:
+ /*
+ * It's possible that the next_task slipped in of
+ * higher priority than current. If that's the case
+ * just reschedule current.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
+ resched_curr(rq);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
if (is_migration_disabled(next_task)) {
struct task_struct *push_task = NULL;
int cpu;
@@ -2033,6 +2043,17 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
if (!pull || rq->push_busy)
return 0;
+ /*
+ * Per the above priority check, curr is at least RT. If it's
+ * of a higher class than RT, invoking find_lowest_rq() on it
+ * doesn't make sense.
+ *
+ * Note that the stoppers are masqueraded as SCHED_FIFO
+ * (cf. sched_set_stop_task()), so we can't rely on rt_task().
+ */
+ if (rq->curr->sched_class != &rt_sched_class)
+ return 0;
+
cpu = find_lowest_rq(rq->curr);
if (cpu == -1 || cpu == rq->cpu)
return 0;
@@ -2057,16 +2078,6 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
if (WARN_ON(next_task == rq->curr))
return 0;
- /*
- * It's possible that the next_task slipped in of
- * higher priority than current. If that's the case
- * just reschedule current.
- */
- if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
- resched_curr(rq);
- return 0;
- }
-
/* We might release rq lock */
get_task_struct(next_task);
--
2.25.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-01-20 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-20 19:40 Valentin Schneider [this message]
2022-01-20 19:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-21 19:47 ` John Keeping
2022-01-24 12:39 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-24 9:37 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-01-24 13:29 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-24 15:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-01-24 16:51 ` Valentin Schneider
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=20220120194037.650433-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=john@metanate.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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