Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup/cpuset: Change nr_deadline_tasks to an atomic_t value

Waiman Long
2023-11-03T17:02:33Z

On 11/3/23 10:29, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 02/11/23 09:01, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 11/2/23 06:26, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> Hi Waiman,
>>>
>>> On 01/11/23 13:59, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/23 12:34, Michal Koutný wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:18:34AM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The nr_deadline_tasks field in cpuset structure was introduced by
>>>>>> commit 6c24849f5515 ("sched/cpuset: Keep track of SCHED_DEADLINE task
>>>>>> in cpusets"). Unlike nr_migrate_dl_tasks which is only modified under
>>>>>> cpuset_mutex, nr_deadline_tasks can be updated under two different
>>>>>> locks - cpuset_mutex in most cases or css_set_lock in cgroup_exit(). As
>>>>>> a result, data races can happen leading to incorrect nr_deadline_tasks
>>>>>> value.
>>>>> The effect is that dl_update_tasks_root_domain() processes tasks
>>>>> unnecessarily or that it incorrectly skips dl_add_task_root_domain()?
>>>> The effect is that dl_update_tasks_root_domain() may return incorrectly or
>>>> it is doing unnecessary work. Will update the commit log to reflect that.
>>>>>> Since it is not practical to somehow take cpuset_mutex in cgroup_exit(),
>>>>>> the easy way out to avoid this possible race condition is by making
>>>>>> nr_deadline_tasks an atomic_t value.
>>>>> If css_set_lock is useless for this fields and it's going to be atomic,
>>>>> could you please add (presumably) a cleanup that moves dec_dl_tasks_cs()
>>>>> from under css_set_lock in cgroup_exit() to a (new but specific)
>>>>> cpuset_cgrp_subsys.exit() handler?
>>>> But css_set_lock is needed for updating other css data. It is true that we
>>>> can move dec_dl_tasks_cs() outside of the lock. I can do that in the next
>>>> version.
>>> Not sure if you had a chance to check my last question/comment on your
>>> previous posting?
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZSjfBWgZf15TchA5@localhost.localdomain/
>> Thanks for the reminder. I look at your comment again. Even though
>> dl_rebuild_rd_accounting() operates on css(es) via css_task_iter_start() and
>> css_task_iter_next(), the css_set_lock is released at the end of it. So it
>> is still possible that a task can call cgroup_exit() after
>> css_task_iter_next() and is being processed by dl_add_task_root_domain(). Is
>> there a helper in the do_exit() path to nullify the dl_task() check. Or
>> maybe we can also check for PF_EXITING in dl_add_task_root_domain() under
>> the pi_lock and do the dl_task() check the under pi_lock to synchronize with
>> dl_add_task_root_domain(). What do you think?
>>
>> I still believe that it doesn't really matter if we call dec_dl_tasks_cs()
>> inside or outside the css_set_lock.
> Hummm, what if we move dec_dl_tasks_cs outside css_set_lock guard in
> cgroup_exit and we grab cpuset_mutex (for dl_tasks) before doing the
> decrement in there?

It is a possibility, but acquiring a mutex in the exit path may cause it
to sleep. A dying task in the sleep state may be a problem.

Cheers,
Longman