Re: [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race between dl_task_timer() and sched_setaffinity()

[Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:53:15 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:08:53AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 20.05.2014, 04:00, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:31:19PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >
> > >>  @@ -513,9 +513,17 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > >>                                                        struct sched_dl_entity,
> > >>                                                        dl_timer);
> > >>           struct task_struct *p = dl_task_of(dl_se);
> > >>  - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> > >>  + struct rq *rq;
> > >>  +again:
> > >>  + rq = task_rq(p);
> > >>           raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > >>
> > >>  + if (unlikely(rq != task_rq(p))) {
> > >>  + /* Task was moved, retrying. */
> > >>  + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > >>  + goto again;
> > >>  + }
> > >>  +
> > >
> > > That thing is called: rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
> > 
> > But p->pi_lock is not held. The problem is __task_rq_lock() has lockdep assert.
> > Should we change it?
> 
> Ok, so now that I'm awake ;-)
> 
> So the trivial problem as described by your initial changelog isn't
> right, because we cannot call sched_setaffinity() on deadline tasks, or
> rather we can, but we can't actually change the affinity mask.
> 

Well, if we disable AC we can. And I was able to recreate that race in
that case.

> Now I suppose the problem can still actually happen when you change the
> root domain and trigger a effective affinity change that way.
> 

Yeah, I think here too.

> That said, no leave it as you proposed, adding a *task_rq_lock() variant
> without lockdep assert in will only confuse things, as normally we
> really should be also taking ->pi_lock.
> 
> The only reason we don't strictly need ->pi_lock now is because we're
> guaranteed to have p->state == TASK_RUNNING here and are thus free of
> ttwu races.

Maybe we could add this as part of the comment.

Thanks,

- Juri