Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:32:49 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: fix tsk->pi_lock isn't held when do_set_cpus_allowed() |
| |
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:10:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:05:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 03:59:54PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > > +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c > > > @@ -2376,8 +2376,12 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk, struct cpumask *pmask) > > > > > > void cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > { > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->pi_lock, flags); > > > do_set_cpus_allowed(tsk, task_cs(tsk)->effective_cpus); > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->pi_lock, flags); > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > Aside from the double lock thing that was already pointed out, I think > > this is wrong, because the select_task_rq() call can already have > > pi_lock held. > > > > Taking it again would result in a deadlock. > > > > Consider for instance: > > > > try_to_wake_up() > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(->pi_lock) > > select_task_rq() > > select_ballback_rq() > > cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback() > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(->pi_lock) > > > > > > The problem is with the migration path and should be fixed there. > > Another problem, migration_call() will have rq->lock held, so you're > proposing to acquire pi_lock while holding rq->lock, this is an > inversion from the regular nesting order. >
So Possibly, Maybe (I'm still to wrecked to say for sure), something like this would work:
WARN_ON(debug_locks && (lockdep_is_held(&p->pi_lock) || (p->on_rq && lockdep_is_held(&rq->lock))));
Instead of those two separate lockdep asserts.
Please consider carefully.
| |