From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@meta.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
lclaudio00@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:15:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250714141551.l07CZvFl@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aGvTz5VaPFyj0pBV@uudg.org>
On 2025-07-07 11:03:59 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> With PREEMPT_RT enabled, some of the calls to put_task_struct() coming
> from rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() could happen in preemptible context and
> with a mutex enqueued. That could lead to this sequence:
>
> rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()
> put_task_struct()
> __put_task_struct()
> sched_ext_free()
> spin_lock_irqsave()
> rtlock_lock() ---> TRIGGERS
> lockdep_assert(!current->pi_blocked_on);
>
> This is not a SCHED_EXT bug. The first cleanup function called by
> __put_task_struct() is sched_ext_free() and it happens to take a
> (RT) spin_lock, which in the scenario described above, would trigger
> the lockdep assertion of "!current->pi_blocked_on".
>
> Crystal Wood was able to identify the problem as __put_task_struct()
> being called during rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(), in the context of
> a process with a mutex enqueued.
>
> Instead of adding more complex conditions to decide when to directly
> call __put_task_struct() and when to defer the call, unconditionally
> resort to the deferred call on PREEMPT_RT to simplify the code.
>
> Suggested-by: Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
> Fixes: 893cdaaa3977 ("sched: avoid false lockdep splat in put_task_struct()")
> Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Side note: This simplifies the call chain to always free the task struct
via RCU. This also means that the stack is not immediately available for
recycle (CONFIG_VMAP_STACK) but after the grace period. Based on my
testing the new task was also deployed on a remote CPU therefore I
wouldn't worry too much here. Just wanted to point the only difference I
could come up with.
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-14 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 14:03 Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-10 16:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-07-14 14:15 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2025-07-16 10:19 ` [tip: sched/core] sched: Do " tip-bot2 for Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-28 20:14 ` [PATCH v6] sched: do " Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-29 7:33 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 11:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-29 12:45 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-07-29 13:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-01 10:51 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-08-11 10:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 11:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:16 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-11 12:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-11 12:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-20 14:53 ` usage of DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(LD_WAIT_SLEEP) Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 13:53 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 15:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-23 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-23 19:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 10:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-10-24 10:39 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-10-24 15:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20250714141551.l07CZvFl@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=crwood@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dvernet@meta.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=lclaudio00@gmail.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wander@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®