lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 5/8] sched/deadline: Reclaim cpuset bandwidth in .migrate_task_rq()
On 09/10/19 01:25, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 10:52 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 30/09/19 11:24, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 09:12 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Hummm, I was actually more worried about the fact that we call
> > > > free_old_
> > > > cpuset_bw_dl() only if p->state != TASK_WAKING.
> > >
> > > Oh, right. :-P Not sure what I had in mind there; we want to call it
> > > regardless.
> > >
> > > I assume we need rq->lock in free_old_cpuset_bw_dl()? So something like
> >
> > I think we can do with rcu_read_lock_sched() (see dl_task_can_attach()).
>
> RCU will keep dl_bw from being freed under us (we're implicitly in an RCU
> sched read section due to atomic context). It won't stop rq->rd from
> changing, but that could have happened before we took rq->lock. If the cpu
> the task was running on was removed from the cpuset, and that raced with the
> task being moved to a different cpuset, couldn't we end up erroneously
> subtracting from the cpu's new root domain (or failing to subtract at all if
> the old cpu's new cpuset happens to be the task's new cpuset)? I don't see
> anything that forces tasks off of the cpu when a cpu is removed from a
> cpuset (though maybe I'm not looking in the right place), so the race window
> could be quite large. In any case, that's an existing problem that's not
> going to get solved in this patchset.

OK. So, mainline has got cpuset_read_lock() which should be enough to
guard against changes to rd(s).

I agree that rq->lock is needed here.

Thanks,

Juri

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-09 09:28    [W:0.070 / U:3.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site