From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
hpa@zytor.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
ronny.meeus@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()" has been added to the 4.0-stable tree
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:10:34 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433301034220190@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()
to the 4.0-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
sched-handle-priority-boosted-tasks-proper-in-setscheduler.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.0 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From 0782e63bc6fe7e2d3408d250df11d388b7799c6b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 19:49:49 +0200
Subject: sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
commit 0782e63bc6fe7e2d3408d250df11d388b7799c6b upstream.
Ronny reported that the following scenario is not handled correctly:
T1 (prio = 10)
lock(rtmutex);
T2 (prio = 20)
lock(rtmutex)
boost T1
T1 (prio = 20)
sys_set_scheduler(prio = 30)
T1 prio = 30
....
sys_set_scheduler(prio = 10)
T1 prio = 30
The last step is wrong as T1 should now be back at prio 20.
Commit c365c292d059 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
only handles the case where a boosted tasks tries to lower its
priority.
Fix it by taking the new effective priority into account for the
decision whether a change of the priority is required.
Reported-by: Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Fixes: c365c292d059 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051806060.4225@nanos
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
include/linux/sched/rt.h | 7 ++++---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 12 +++++++-----
kernel/sched/core.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/sched/rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/rt.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static inline int rt_task(struct task_st
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
extern int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p);
extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio);
-extern int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
+extern int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
extern struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task);
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *p);
static inline bool tsk_is_pi_blocked(struct task_struct *tsk)
@@ -31,9 +31,10 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_getprio(struc
return p->normal_prio;
}
-static inline int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
+static inline int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task,
+ int newprio)
{
- return 0;
+ return newprio;
}
static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -265,15 +265,17 @@ struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_tas
}
/*
- * Called by sched_setscheduler() to check whether the priority change
- * is overruled by a possible priority boosting.
+ * Called by sched_setscheduler() to get the priority which will be
+ * effective after the change.
*/
-int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
+int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
{
if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
- return 0;
+ return newprio;
- return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio <= newprio;
+ if (task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio <= newprio)
+ return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio;
+ return newprio;
}
/*
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3295,15 +3295,18 @@ static void __setscheduler_params(struct
/* Actually do priority change: must hold pi & rq lock. */
static void __setscheduler(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
- const struct sched_attr *attr)
+ const struct sched_attr *attr, bool keep_boost)
{
__setscheduler_params(p, attr);
/*
- * If we get here, there was no pi waiters boosting the
- * task. It is safe to use the normal prio.
+ * Keep a potential priority boosting if called from
+ * sched_setscheduler().
*/
- p->prio = normal_prio(p);
+ if (keep_boost)
+ p->prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, normal_prio(p));
+ else
+ p->prio = normal_prio(p);
if (dl_prio(p->prio))
p->sched_class = &dl_sched_class;
@@ -3403,7 +3406,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t
int newprio = dl_policy(attr->sched_policy) ? MAX_DL_PRIO - 1 :
MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 - attr->sched_priority;
int retval, oldprio, oldpolicy = -1, queued, running;
- int policy = attr->sched_policy;
+ int new_effective_prio, policy = attr->sched_policy;
unsigned long flags;
const struct sched_class *prev_class;
struct rq *rq;
@@ -3585,15 +3588,14 @@ change:
oldprio = p->prio;
/*
- * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
- *
- * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
- * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
+ * Take priority boosted tasks into account. If the new
+ * effective priority is unchanged, we just store the new
* normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
* the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
* itself.
*/
- if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
+ new_effective_prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, newprio);
+ if (new_effective_prio == oldprio) {
__setscheduler_params(p, attr);
task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
return 0;
@@ -3607,7 +3609,7 @@ change:
put_prev_task(rq, p);
prev_class = p->sched_class;
- __setscheduler(rq, p, attr);
+ __setscheduler(rq, p, attr, true);
if (running)
p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
@@ -7357,7 +7359,7 @@ static void normalize_task(struct rq *rq
queued = task_on_rq_queued(p);
if (queued)
dequeue_task(rq, p, 0);
- __setscheduler(rq, p, &attr);
+ __setscheduler(rq, p, &attr, false);
if (queued) {
enqueue_task(rq, p, 0);
resched_curr(rq);
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from tglx@linutronix.de are
queue-4.0/x86-mce-fix-mce-severity-messages.patch
queue-4.0/ktime-fix-ktime_divns-to-do-signed-division.patch
queue-4.0/perf-x86-rapl-enable-broadwell-u-rapl-support.patch
queue-4.0/x86-fpu-disable-xsaves-support-for-now.patch
queue-4.0/sched-handle-priority-boosted-tasks-proper-in-setscheduler.patch
reply other threads:[~2015-06-03 3:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1433301034220190@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ronny.meeus@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
/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.