lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: fix race in schedule
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?

thanks, your patch looks nice to me.
I had focused setprio, on_rq=0 and running=1 situation, it makes me to
fix these functions.
But one point, I've just noticed. I'm not sure on same situation against
sched_rt. I think the pre_schedule() of rt has chance to drop rq lock.
Is it OK?

>
> ---
> 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 21:05    [W:0.064 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site