lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: fix race in schedule
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:01 -0700, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I found a race condition in scheduler.
> The first report is the below;
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/26/459
>
> It took a bit long time to investigate and I couldn't have much time last week.
> It is hard to reproduce but -rt is little easier because it has preemptible
> spin lock and rcu.
>
> Could you please check the scenario and the patch.
> It will be needed for the stable, too.
>
> ---
> From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
>
> There is a race condition between schedule() and some dequeue/enqueue
> functions; rt_mutex_setprio(), __setscheduler() and sched_move_task().
>
> When scheduling to idle, idle_balance() is called to pull tasks from
> other busy processor. It might drop the rq lock.
> It means that those 3 functions encounter on_rq=0 and running=1.
> The current task should be put when running.
>
> Here is a possible scenario;
> CPU0 CPU1
> | schedule()
> | ->deactivate_task()
> | ->idle_balance()
> | -->load_balance_newidle()
> rt_mutex_setprio() |
> | --->double_lock_balance()
> *get lock *rel lock
> * on_rq=0, ruuning=1 |
> * sched_class is changed |
> *rel lock *get lock
> : |
> :
> ->put_prev_task_rt()
> ->pick_next_task_fair()
> => panic
>
> The current process of CPU1(P1) is scheduling. Deactivated P1,
> and the scheduler looks for another process on other CPU's runqueue
> because CPU1 will be idle. idle_balance(), load_balance_newidle()
> and double_lock_balance() are called and double_lock_balance() could
> drop the rq lock. On the other hand, CPU0 is trying to boost the
> priority of P1. The result of boosting only P1's prio and sched_class
> are changed to RT. The sched entities of P1 and P1's group are never
> put. It makes cfs_rq invalid, because the cfs_rq has curr and no leaf,
> but pick_next_task_fair() is called, then the kernel panics.

Very nice catch, this had me puzzled for a while. I'm not quite sure I
fully understand. Could you explain why the below isn't sufficient?

---
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index a0c79e9..ebd9fc5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4067,10 +4067,11 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
prev->sched_class->pre_schedule(rq, prev);
#endif

+ prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
+
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
idle_balance(cpu, rq);

- prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
next = pick_next_task(rq, prev);

sched_info_switch(prev, next);



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-10 19:41    [W:0.073 / U:1.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site