From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Ben Blum <bblum@google.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:38:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1269452296.5109.508.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100315090958.GA9116@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 10:09 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ingo, Peter.
>
> Unless I missed something, with or without these patches the TASK_WAKING
> logic in do_fork() is very broken.
>
> - do_fork() clears PF_STARTING and then calls wake_up_new_task()
> which finally does s/WAKING/RUNNING.
>
> But. Nobody can take rq->lock in between. This means a signal
> from irq (quite possible with CLONE_THREAD) or another rt
> thread which preempts us can lockup.
Hmm, the signal case might indeed be a problem, however I cannot see how
the RT thread can be a problem because until we do wake_up_new_task()
the child will not be runnable and can thus not be preempted.
We could frob it by taking rq->lock over clearing PF_STARTING but that's
beyond ugly...
> - the comment in wake_up_new_task says:
>
> We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning
> ->cpus_allowed is stable
>
> this is not true. Yes, nobody can take rq->lock _after_ we cleared
> PF_STARTING, but it is possible that another thread took this lock
> before and still holds it doing, say, sched_setaffinity().
>
> No?
>
> If yes. I can make a patch, but the question is: what is the point to use
> TASK_WAKING in fork pathes? Can't sched_fork() set TASK_RUNNING instead?
> Afaics, TASK_RUNNING can equally protect from premature wakeups but doesn't
> these PF_STARTING complications.
Argh, yes.. that's because PF_STARTING is cleared after we expose the
PID, and we needed the PF_STARTING exemption because of that
ns_cgroup_clone() trainwreck.
The reason we have that TASK_WAKING stuff for fork is because
wake_up_new_task() needs p->cpus_allowed to be stable, and we cannot do
select_task_rq() with rq->lock held because of the cgroup-sched crap.
/me goes read the code after applying your patches and frobs the
following patch on top..
So the below patch makes select_task_rq_fair unlock the rq when needed,
and then puts all ->select_task_rq() calls under rq->lock. This should
allow us to remove the TASK_WAKING thing from fork which in turn allows
us to remove the PF_STARTING check in task_is_waking.
How does that look?
(totally untested, will try and boot after dinner)
---
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/sched.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1051,7 +1051,8 @@ struct sched_class {
void (*put_prev_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- int (*select_task_rq)(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags);
+ int (*select_task_rq)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
+ int sd_flag, int flags);
void (*pre_schedule) (struct rq *this_rq, struct task_struct *task);
void (*post_schedule) (struct rq *this_rq);
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -916,14 +916,10 @@ static inline void finish_lock_switch(st
/*
* Check whether the task is waking, we use this to synchronize against
* ttwu() so that task_cpu() reports a stable number.
- *
- * We need to make an exception for PF_STARTING tasks because the fork
- * path might require task_rq_lock() to work, eg. it can call
- * set_cpus_allowed_ptr() from the cpuset clone_ns code.
*/
static inline int task_is_waking(struct task_struct *p)
{
- return unlikely((p->state == TASK_WAKING) && !(p->flags & PF_STARTING));
+ return unlikely(p->state == TASK_WAKING);
}
/*
@@ -2319,9 +2315,9 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, s
* The caller (fork, wakeup) owns TASK_WAKING, ->cpus_allowed is stable.
*/
static inline
-int select_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flags, int wake_flags)
+int select_task_rq(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sd_flags, int wake_flags)
{
- int cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, sd_flags, wake_flags);
+ int cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(rq, p, sd_flags, wake_flags);
/*
* In order not to call set_task_cpu() on a blocking task we need
@@ -2392,9 +2388,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
if (p->sched_class->task_waking)
p->sched_class->task_waking(rq, p);
- __task_rq_unlock(rq);
-
- cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
+ cpu = select_task_rq(rq, p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
if (cpu != orig_cpu) {
/*
* Since we migrate the task without holding any rq->lock,
@@ -2403,6 +2397,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
*/
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
}
+ __task_rq_unlock(rq);
rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
@@ -2533,7 +2528,7 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i
* nobody will actually run it, and a signal or other external
* event cannot wake it up and insert it on the runqueue either.
*/
- p->state = TASK_WAKING;
+ p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
/*
* Revert to default priority/policy on fork if requested.
@@ -2600,28 +2595,25 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct
int cpu __maybe_unused = get_cpu();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
+ p->state = TASK_WAKING;
+
/*
* Fork balancing, do it here and not earlier because:
* - cpus_allowed can change in the fork path
* - any previously selected cpu might disappear through hotplug
*
- * We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning
- * ->cpus_allowed is stable, we have preemption disabled, meaning
- * cpu_online_mask is stable.
+ * We set TASK_WAKING so that select_task_rq() can drop rq->lock
+ * without people poking at ->cpus_allowed.
*/
- cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
+ cpu = select_task_rq(rq, p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
-#endif
- /*
- * Since the task is not on the rq and we still have TASK_WAKING set
- * nobody else will migrate this task.
- */
- rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
-
- BUG_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+ task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+#endif
+
+ rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
activate_task(rq, p, 0);
trace_sched_wakeup_new(rq, p, 1);
check_preempt_curr(rq, p, WF_FORK);
@@ -3067,19 +3059,15 @@ void sched_exec(void)
{
struct task_struct *p = current;
struct migration_req req;
- int dest_cpu, this_cpu;
unsigned long flags;
struct rq *rq;
-
- this_cpu = get_cpu();
- dest_cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_EXEC, 0);
- if (dest_cpu == this_cpu) {
- put_cpu();
- return;
- }
+ int dest_cpu;
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
- put_cpu();
+ dest_cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(rq, p, SD_BALANCE_EXEC, 0);
+ if (dest_cpu == smp_processor_id())
+ goto unlock;
+
/*
* select_task_rq() can race against ->cpus_allowed
*/
@@ -3097,6 +3085,7 @@ void sched_exec(void)
return;
}
+unlock:
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
}
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1414,7 +1414,8 @@ select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *
*
* preempt must be disabled.
*/
-static int select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
+static int
+select_task_rq_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
{
struct sched_domain *tmp, *affine_sd = NULL, *sd = NULL;
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
@@ -1512,8 +1513,11 @@ static int select_task_rq_fair(struct ta
cpumask_weight(sched_domain_span(sd))))
tmp = affine_sd;
- if (tmp)
+ if (tmp) {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
update_shares(tmp);
+ raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+ }
}
#endif
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_idletask.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_idletask.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_idletask.c
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-static int select_task_rq_idle(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
+static int
+select_task_rq_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
{
return task_cpu(p); /* IDLE tasks as never migrated */
}
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_rt.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_rt.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_rt.c
@@ -948,10 +948,9 @@ static void yield_task_rt(struct rq *rq)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task);
-static int select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
+static int
+select_task_rq_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
{
- struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
-
if (sd_flag != SD_BALANCE_WAKE)
return smp_processor_id();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-24 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-15 9:09 [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-24 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-03-24 18:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-25 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-25 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-25 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-25 16:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-25 17:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-25 19:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1269452296.5109.508.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bblum@google.com \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.