lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 3.14 37/78] sched/dl: Fix race in dl_task_timer()
Date
3.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>

commit 0f397f2c90ce68821ee864c2c53baafe78de765d upstream.

Throttled task is still on rq, and it may be moved to other cpu
if user is playing with sched_setaffinity(). Therefore, unlocked
task_rq() access makes the race.

Juri Lelli reports he got this race when dl_bandwidth_enabled()
was not set.

Other thing, pointed by Peter Zijlstra:

"Now I suppose the problem can still actually happen when
you change the root domain and trigger a effective affinity
change that way".

To fix that we do the same as made in __task_rq_lock(). We do not
use __task_rq_lock() itself, because it has a useful lockdep check,
which is not correct in case of dl_task_timer(). We do not need
pi_lock locked here. This case is an exception (PeterZ):

"The only reason we don't strictly need ->pi_lock now is because
we're guaranteed to have p->state == TASK_RUNNING here and are
thus free of ttwu races".

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/3056991400578422@web14g.yandex.ru
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -490,9 +490,17 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_time
struct sched_dl_entity,
dl_timer);
struct task_struct *p = dl_task_of(dl_se);
- struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
+ struct rq *rq;
+again:
+ rq = task_rq(p);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);

+ if (rq != task_rq(p)) {
+ /* Task was moved, retrying. */
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
+ goto again;
+ }
+
/*
* We need to take care of a possible races here. In fact, the
* task might have changed its scheduling policy to something



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-10 03:21    [W:0.575 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site