linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
	<stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-rt@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RT 1/2] sched: Queue RT tasks to head when prio drops
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:53:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121212005413.333977402@goodmis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20121212005342.348897923@goodmis.org

[-- Attachment #1: 0001-sched-Queue-RT-tasks-to-head-when-prio-drops.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3234 bytes --]

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

The following scenario does not work correctly:

Runqueue of CPU1 contains two runnable and pinned tasks:
	 T1: SCHED_FIFO, prio 80
	 T2: SCHED_FIFO, prio 80

T1 is on the cpu and executes the following syscalls (classic priority
ceiling scenario):

 sys_sched_setscheduler(pid(T1), SCHED_FIFO, .prio = 90);
 ...
 sys_sched_setscheduler(pid(T1), SCHED_FIFO, .prio = 80);
 ...

Now T1 gets preempted by T3 (SCHED_FIFO, prio 95). After T3 goes back
to sleep the scheduler picks T2. Surprise!

The same happens w/o actual preemption when T1 is forced into the
scheduler due to a sporadic NEED_RESCHED event. The scheduler invokes
pick_next_task() which returns T2. So T1 gets preempted and scheduled
out.

This happens because sched_setscheduler() dequeues T1 from the prio 90
list and then enqueues it on the tail of the prio 80 list behind T2.
This violates the POSIX spec and surprises user space which relies on
the guarantee that SCHED_FIFO tasks are not scheduled out unless they
give the CPU up voluntarily or are preempted by a higher priority
task. In the latter case the preempted task must get back on the CPU
after the preempting task schedules out again.

We fixed a similar issue already in commit 60db48c(sched: Queue a
deboosted task to the head of the RT prio queue). The same treatment
is necessary for sched_setscheduler().

While analyzing the problem I noticed that the fix in
rt_mutex_setprio() is one off. The head queueing depends on old
priority greater than new priority (user space view), but in fact it
needs to have the same treatment for equal priority. Instead of
blindly changing the condition to <= it's better to avoid the whole
dequeue/requeue business for the equal priority case completely.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable-rt@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
 kernel/sched.c |   16 ++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 2cf4c4b..0977f02 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -5021,6 +5021,8 @@ void task_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio)
 
 	trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio);
 	oldprio = p->prio;
+	if (oldprio == prio)
+		goto out_unlock;
 	prev_class = p->sched_class;
 	on_rq = p->on_rq;
 	running = task_current(rq, p);
@@ -5370,6 +5372,13 @@ recheck:
 		task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
 		goto recheck;
 	}
+
+	p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork;
+
+	oldprio = p->prio;
+	if (oldprio == param->sched_priority)
+		goto out;
+
 	on_rq = p->on_rq;
 	running = task_current(rq, p);
 	if (on_rq)
@@ -5377,18 +5386,17 @@ recheck:
 	if (running)
 		p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
 
-	p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork;
-
-	oldprio = p->prio;
 	prev_class = p->sched_class;
 	__setscheduler(rq, p, policy, param->sched_priority);
 
 	if (running)
 		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
 	if (on_rq)
-		activate_task(rq, p, 0);
+		activate_task(rq, p, oldprio < param->sched_priority ?
+			      ENQUEUE_HEAD : 0);
 
 	check_class_changed(rq, p, prev_class, oldprio);
+out:
 	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
 
 	rt_mutex_adjust_pi(p);
-- 
1.7.10.4

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-12  0:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-12  0:53 [PATCH RT 0/2] [ANNOUNCE] 3.0.55-rt80-rc1 stable review Steven Rostedt
2012-12-12  0:53 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2012-12-12  0:53 ` [PATCH RT 2/2] Linux 3.0.55-rt80-rc1 Steven Rostedt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-12-12  0:50 [PATCH RT 0/2] [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.35-rt53-rc1 stable release Steven Rostedt
2012-12-12  0:50 ` [PATCH RT 1/2] sched: Queue RT tasks to head when prio drops Steven Rostedt
2012-12-12  0:45 [PATCH RT 0/2] [ANNOUNCE] 3.4.22-rt34-rc1 stable review Steven Rostedt
2012-12-12  0:45 ` [PATCH RT 1/2] sched: Queue RT tasks to head when prio drops Steven Rostedt

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=20121212005413.333977402@goodmis.org \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=C.Emde@osadl.org \
    --cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable-rt@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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).