lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 4/5] sched/core: Prevent race condition between cpuset and __sched_setscheduler()
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> No synchronisation mechanism exists between the cpuset subsystem and calls
> to function __sched_setscheduler(). As such, it is possible that new root
> domains are created on the cpuset side while a deadline acceptance test
> is carried out in __sched_setscheduler(), leading to a potential oversell
> of CPU bandwidth.
>
> Grab callback_lock from core scheduler, so to prevent situations such as
> the one described above from happening.

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f5263383170e..d928a42b8852 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4224,6 +4224,13 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> update_rq_clock(rq);
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure we don't race with the cpuset subsystem where root
> + * domains can be rebuilt or modified while operations like DL
> + * admission checks are carried out.
> + */
> + cpuset_read_only_lock();
> +
> /*
> * Changing the policy of the stop threads its a very bad idea:
> */
> @@ -4285,6 +4292,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> /* Re-check policy now with rq lock held: */
> if (unlikely(oldpolicy != -1 && oldpolicy != p->policy)) {
> policy = oldpolicy = -1;
> + cpuset_read_only_unlock();
> task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> goto recheck;
> }
> @@ -4342,6 +4350,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
>
> /* Avoid rq from going away on us: */
> preempt_disable();
> + cpuset_read_only_unlock();
> task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
>
> if (pi)
> @@ -4354,6 +4363,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> return 0;
>
> unlock:
> + cpuset_read_only_unlock();
> task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> return retval;
> }

Why take callback_lock inside rq->lock and not the other way around?
AFAICT there is no pre-existing order so we can pick one here.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-04 13:11    [W:0.245 / U:33.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site