From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set()
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:53:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-UgI3dSwcLa-CRC@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z-UEkJfkkBBKqCyU@gpd3>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 08:56:12AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 02:24:16PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Andrea.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 03:00:21PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > @@ -7114,12 +7114,22 @@ __bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_cpuperf_set(s32 cpu, u32 perf)
> > >
> > > if (ops_cpu_valid(cpu, NULL)) {
> > > struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > > + struct rq_flags rf;
> > > + bool rq_unlocked;
> > > +
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + rq_unlocked = (rq != this_rq()) || scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked();
> > > + if (rq_unlocked) {
> > > + rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
> >
> > I don't think this is correct:
> >
> > - This is double-locking regardless of the locking order and thus can lead
> > to ABBA deadlocks.
> >
> > - There's no guarantee that the locked rq is this_rq(). e.g. In wakeup path,
> > the locked rq is on the CPU that the wakeup is targeting, not this_rq().
> >
> > Hmm... this is a bit tricky. SCX_CALL_OP*() always knows whether the rq is
> > locked or not. We might as well pass it the currently locked rq and remember
> > that in a percpu variable, so that scx_bpf_*() can always tell whether and
> > which cpu is rq-locked currently. If unlocked, we can grab the rq lock. If
> > the traget cpu is not the locked one, we can either fail the operation (and
> > trigger ops error) or bounce it to an irq work.
>
> Hm... that's right, it looks like this requires a bit more work than
> expected, but saving the currently locked rq might be helpful also for
> other kfuncs, I'll take a look at this.
What if we lock the rq in the scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() case, and for
all the other cases we ignore locking if rq == this_rq(). If we need to
operate on a different rq than the current one we could either defer the
work or just trigger an ops error. Something like:
if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked()) {
rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
update_rq_clock(rq);
} else if (rq != this_rq()) {
// defer work or ops error
return;
}
lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
rq->scx.cpuperf_target = perf;
cpufreq_update_util(rq, 0);
if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked())
rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
AFAICS all the current scx schedulers call scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() from
ops.running(), ops.tick() or ops.init(), so even with the ops error we
should cover all the existent cases.
The only unsupported scenario is calling scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() from
ops.enqueue() / ops.select_cpu(), but maybe we could add the deferred work
later to handle that if needed.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-27 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-25 14:00 [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 0:24 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 7:56 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 9:53 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-03-27 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 17:15 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 17:19 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 17:27 ` Andrea Righi
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=Z-UgI3dSwcLa-CRC@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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.