From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@meta.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
DietmarEggemann@uudg.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v4] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:05:14 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEw-KjUjjP2gYH6z@uudg.org> (raw)
With PREEMPT_RT enabled, some of the calls to put_task_struct() coming
from rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() could happen in preemptible context and
with a mutex enqueued. That could lead to this sequence:
rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()
put_task_struct()
__put_task_struct()
sched_ext_free()
spin_lock_irqsave()
rtlock_lock() ---> TRIGGERS
lockdep_assert(!current->pi_blocked_on);
Fix that by unconditionally resorting to the deferred call to
__put_task_struct() if PREEMPT_RT is enabled.
Suggested-by: Crystal Wood <crwood@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
---
Resent as a gentle reminder, because this issue results in scary backtraces,
not obvious to debug and pinpoint root cause.
v2: (Rostedt) remove the #ifdef from put_task_struct() and create
tsk_is_pi_blocked_on() in sched.h to make the change cleaner.
v3: (Sebastian, PeterZ) always call the deferred __put_task_struct() on RT.
v4: Fix the implementation of what was requested on v3.
include/linux/sched/task.h | 17 ++++++++---------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
index 0f2aeb37bbb04..51678a541477a 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
@@ -134,11 +134,8 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
return;
- /*
- * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
- * Under RT, we can only call it in preemptible context.
- */
- if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || preemptible()) {
+ /* In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct(). */
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(put_task_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
lock_map_acquire_try(&put_task_map);
@@ -148,11 +145,13 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
}
/*
- * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
+ * Under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call __put_task_struct
* in atomic context because it will indirectly
- * acquire sleeping locks.
+ * acquire sleeping locks. The same is true if the
+ * current process has a mutex enqueued (blocked on
+ * a PI chain).
*
- * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
+ * call_rcu() will schedule __put_task_struct_rcu_cb()
* to be called in process context.
*
* __put_task_struct() is called when
@@ -165,7 +164,7 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
*
* delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
* when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
- * way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
+ * way it can conflict with __put_task_struct().
*/
call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
}
----- End forwarded message -----
next reply other threads:[~2025-06-13 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-13 15:05 Luis Claudio R. Goncalves [this message]
2025-06-16 11:03 ` [RESEND PATCH v4] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set Wander Lairson Costa
2025-06-17 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-17 9:36 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-06-17 10:52 ` Wander Lairson Costa
2025-06-17 13:10 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2025-06-17 13:16 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
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=aEw-KjUjjP2gYH6z@uudg.org \
--to=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=DietmarEggemann@uudg.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=crwood@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dvernet@meta.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wander@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).