lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Use RCU-sched in core-scheduling balancing logic
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01:27AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/3/23 23:21, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:58:18PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >> On 2020/3/14 8:30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:29:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >>>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent deadlock in
> >>>> sched_core_balance(). Fix this by using the RCU-sched flavor instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> This fixes the following spinlock recursion observed when testing the
> >>>> core scheduling patches on PREEMPT=y kernel on ChromeOS:
> >>>>
> >>>> [ 14.998590] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [kworker/0:10:965]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The original could indeed deadlock, and this would avoid that deadlock.
> >>> (The commit to solve this deadlock is sadly not yet in mainline.)
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> >>
> >> I saw this in dmesg with this patch, is it expected?
> >>
> >> [ 117.000905] =============================
> >> [ 117.000907] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >> [ 117.000911] 5.5.7+ #160 Not tainted
> >> [ 117.000913] -----------------------------
> >> [ 117.000916] kernel/sched/core.c:4747 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> >> [ 117.000918]
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > Sigh, this is because for_each_domain() expects rcu_read_lock(). From an RCU
> > PoV, the code is correct (warning doesn't cause any issue).
> >
> > To silence warning, we could replace the rcu_read_lock_sched() in my patch with:
> > preempt_disable();
> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > and replace the unlock with:
> >
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > preempt_enable();
> >
> > That should both take care of both the warning and the scheduler-related
> > deadlock. Thoughts?
> >
>
> How about this?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a01df3e..7ff694e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4743,7 +4743,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
> int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
> for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
> break;
> @@ -4754,7 +4753,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
> if (steal_cookie_task(cpu, sd))
> break;
> }
> - raw_spin_lock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));

try_steal_cookie() does a double_rq_lock(). Would this change not deadlock
with that?

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-24 19:49    [W:0.092 / U:9.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site