From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
ziqianlu@bytedance.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 01/12] sched/core: Fix pick_next_task() self recursion
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:59:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261107120206.744550421@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261107115913.261163891@infradead.org>
It is possible for another sibling to end up in pick_next_task() when:
pick_next_task()
pick_task()
sched_class::pick_task()
drops the core wide rq->lock. In this case they end up trampling the core wide
task selection state, possibly leading to NULL derefs. Detect this case by
keeping a local copy of core_task_seq, a value that is incremented on
{en,de}queue and schedule.
Since RETRY_TASK is only possible when a higher priority task gets enqueued
during the lock break, this must mean core_task_seq will also be incremented
and is thus completely covered by the seq number mismatch.
If there are forward progress issues; those might possibly be solved by using
core_pick_in_flight.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6296,14 +6296,14 @@ static struct task_struct *
pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
__must_hold(__rq_lockp(rq))
{
+ bool core_clock_updated = (rq == rq->core);
struct task_struct *next, *p, *max;
const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
+ int i, cpu, seq, occ = 0;
bool fi_before = false;
- bool core_clock_updated = (rq == rq->core);
+ bool need_sync = false;
unsigned long cookie;
- int i, cpu, occ = 0;
struct rq *rq_i;
- bool need_sync = false;
if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
return __pick_next_task(rq, rf);
@@ -6377,7 +6377,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_
* However, preemptions can cause multiple picks on the same task set.
* 'Fix' this by also increasing @task_seq for every pick.
*/
- rq->core->core_task_seq++;
+ seq = ++rq->core->core_task_seq;
/*
* Optimize for common case where this CPU has no cookies
@@ -6394,6 +6394,15 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_
}
if (!next->core_cookie) {
+ /*
+ * pick_task() can drop the core rq lock through
+ * newidle balance. If a sibling established a
+ * core-wide cookie while the lock was dropped, the
+ * uncookied no-sync fast path is no longer valid.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(rq->core->core_cookie))
+ goto restart;
+
rq->core_pick = NULL;
rq->core_dl_server = NULL;
/*
@@ -6425,7 +6434,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_
update_rq_clock(rq_i);
p = pick_task(rq_i, rf);
- if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK)) {
+ if (unlikely(seq != rq->core->core_task_seq ||
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(p == RETRY_TASK))) {
/* rq lock may have been dropped, clocks invalidated */
core_clock_updated = false;
if (!(rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_UPDATED))
@@ -6455,7 +6465,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_
if (cookie)
p = sched_core_find(rq_i, cookie);
if (!p)
- p = idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq_i, rf);
+ p = idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq_i, NULL);
}
rq_i->core_pick = p;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-07 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-07 11:59 [PATCH v2 00/12] sched: core-sched fixes and balancing Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 02/12] sched/core: Introduce rq_drop_lock() Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 03/12] sched/core: Decompose update_rq_clock() Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 04/12] sched/core: Make __update_rq_clock() skip updates on UPDATED Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 05/12] sched/core: Abstract/fix rq_clock_start_loop_update() Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 06/12] sched/core: New rq_{pin,drop,repin,unpin}_lock() semantics Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 07/12] sched/core: Simplify/fix time updates Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 08/12] sched/core: Allow newidle for core-sched Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 09/12] sched/rt: Add early exit on balance path Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/12] sched/fair: Reflow pick_task_fair() / newidle Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 11/12] sched/fair: Push sched_balance_newidle() unlock down Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-07 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 12/12] sched: Remove sched_class::balance() Peter Zijlstra
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=20261107120206.744550421@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=ziqianlu@bytedance.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®