From: Xiaosen <xiaosen.he@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: flush plug in schedule_preempt_disabled() to prevent deadlock
Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 14:18:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6611f3ea-b70f-45c7-9332-235647643a49@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agQxg-pBzF8rp1Ii@fedora>
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260427183848.698551-2-jstultz@google.com/
The above change can resolve the deadlock I reported before by setting
task's state to TASK_RUNNING before switching context.
There is the likely alternative fix below.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260512025635.2840817-1-jstultz@google.com/
Regards,
Xiaosen
On 5/13/2026 4:08 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 09:30:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:07:03AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 07:16:36AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Hello, Ming.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:45:14PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 02:40:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 02:04:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 04:59:39PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>>>> On preemptible kernels, a deadlock can occur when a task with plugged IO
>>>>>>>> calls schedule_preempt_disabled():
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> schedule_preempt_disabled()
>>>>>>>> sched_preempt_enable_no_resched() // preemption now enabled
>>>>>>>> schedule() // <-- preemption can happen here
>>>>>>>> sched_submit_work()
>>>>>>>> blk_flush_plug()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After sched_preempt_enable_no_resched() re-enables preemption, the task
>>>>>>>> can be preempted (e.g., by a higher-priority RT task) before reaching
>>>>>>>> blk_flush_plug() in sched_submit_work(). Since the task's state is
>>>>>>>> already TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (set by the mutex/rwsem slowpath caller),
>>>>>>>> requests in current->plug remain unflushed for an unbounded time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If another task depends on those plugged requests to make progress (e.g.,
>>>>>>>> to release a lock the sleeping task needs), a deadlock results:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Task A (writeback worker): holds plugged IO, preempted before
>>>>>>>> flushing, stuck on run queue behind higher-priority work
>>>>>>>> - Task B: waiting for IO completion from Task A's plug, holds a lock
>>>>>>>> that Task A needs to be woken up
>>>>
>>>> My memory is hazy around io_schedule but the above reads really weird to me.
>>>> A task, regardless of its current state stays on the runqueue when
>>>> preempted, so the condition is temporary. As soon as the preempted task can
>>>> get CPU, it should unwind the situation. That's not a deadlock. Is the
>>>> problem that there can be preemption-induced delay in flushing the plugs?
>>>
>>> IMO, preempting a `!TASK_RUNNING` task can be thought as effective sleep,
>>
>> No it cannot be. Preemption ignores task state.
>
> Yeah, I get similar conclusion too with AI's assistance.
>
> But both two reports show that the preempted task aren't switched back for
> long enough time, can you share any idea for Michael & Xiaosen to investigate
> further from scheduler side?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20260417082744.30124-1-michael@allwinnertech.com/
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/5660795d-87de-46f5-add4-7729a02225ef@oss.qualcomm.com/
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-15 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-12 8:59 [PATCH] sched: flush plug in schedule_preempt_disabled() to prevent deadlock Ming Lei
2026-05-12 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-12 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-12 15:45 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-12 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-12 16:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-12 17:16 ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-13 2:07 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-13 7:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-13 8:08 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-15 6:18 ` Xiaosen [this message]
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=6611f3ea-b70f-45c7-9332-235647643a49@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=xiaosen.he@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@allwinnertech.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox