From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@google.com>,
Sonam Sanju <sonam.sanju@intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@linux.dev>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@arm.com>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"Suleiman Souhlal" <suleiman@google.com>,
kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>, hupu <hupu.gm@gmail.com>,
<kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: proxy-exec: Close race causing workqueue work being delayed
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:36:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <148b7898-9eef-4203-bb6c-5ba7f523fd01@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260427183848.698551-2-jstultz@google.com>
Hello John,
On 4/28/2026 12:08 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> Vineeth reported seeing a KVM related deadlock connected to work
> queue lockups using the android17-6.18 tree, which has
> Proxy Execution enabled (using the full patch stack), but I've
> subsequently reproduced it on v7.1-rc1.
>
> On further debugging he found:
> - kvm-irqfd-cleanup workqueue and rcu_gp lands in a per-cpu
> pwq(work queue pool)
> - one of kvm-irqfd-cleanup worker(say A) takes a mutex and then
> calls synchronize_srcu_expedited()
> - one other kvm-irqfd-cleanup worker worker(Say B) tries to
> acquire the lock and then gets blocked
> - On the way to blocking, this cpu gets an IPI and on return
> from IPI, it calls __schedule() and did not get to complete
> workqueue accounting(worker->sleeping = 0 and decrementing
> pool->nr_running). This is done in sched_submit_work() ->
> wq_worker_sleeping() called from schedule() and we got
> preempted before that.
> - proxy execution doesn't immediately take it off run queue as
> p->blocked_on is set during __mutex_lock
> - Next time when B is picked for running, it notices A(mutex
> holder) is not on a runqueue and then blocks B.
> find_proxy_task() -> proxy_deactivate() -> block_task()
> - And things are then stuck. A is waiting for the workqueue to
> be run, but B can't run the workqueue as it is blocked on A.
>
> The trouble is that with Proxy Execution, in
> __mutex_lock_common() we set the task state to
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and set blocked_on before calling into
> schedule(), where sched_submit_work() will be called.
Geez! That is an interesting race.
>
> But if an IPI comes in before we call schedule() the interrupt
> will call __schedule(SM_PREEMPT) directly. This causes the
> scheduler to see the current task as blocked_on, and deactivate
> it (because the owner is off the runqueue).
>
> Since its deactivated, it wont' be run, and it won't get to
> call sched_submit_work().
>
> Without proxy-execution, the SM_PREEMPT case will prevent the
> task from being dequeued, and it can be reselected again and
> run, which will allow it to finish calling into schedule()
> and calling sched_submit_work() before actually blocking.
>
> So we need to make sure on the SM_PREEMPT case, if current is
> marked as blocked_on, we should clear the blocked_on state and
> mark the task RUNNABLE so the task can be selected to complete
> its call to schedule() -> sched_submit_work().
>
> Now because we cleared BLOCKED_ON and set the task RUNNABLE,
> the task will be able to be selected and run again and loop back
> in __mutex_lock_common() where it can re-set the blocked_on
> state and call back into schedule() in order to properly be
> chosen as a donor.
>
> Many thanks to Vineeth for figuring this very obscure race out
> and for implementing a test tool to make it easily reproducible!
>
> Reported-by: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@google.com>
> Tested-by: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
I guess it is missing a:
Fixes: be41bde4c3a8 ("sched: Add an initial sketch of the find_proxy_task() function")
since that is where we began blocking a task on task_is_blocked(). I
really wish there was a better way to have detected this but I cannot
think of any better way at the moment so feel free to include:
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> ---
> Cc: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@google.com>
> Cc: Sonam Sanju <sonam.sanju@intel.com>
> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Cc: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@arm.com>
> Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>
> Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Cc: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
> Cc: kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>
> Cc: hupu <hupu.gm@gmail.com>
> Cc: kernel-team@android.com
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index da20fb6ea25ae..5f684caefd8b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7097,6 +7097,17 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
> try_to_block_task(rq, prev, &prev_state,
> !task_is_blocked(prev));
> switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
> + } else if (preempt && prev->blocked_on) {
> + /*
> + * If we are SM_PREEMPT, we may have interrupted
> + * after blocked_on was set, before schedule()
> + * was run, preventing workques from running. So
> + * clear blocked_on and mark task RUNNING so it
> + * can be reselected to run and complete its
> + * logic
> + */
> + WRITE_ONCE(prev->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
nit.
You probably need to update "prev_state" too for trace_sched_switch() to
capture the right state down below.
Since this is on the way to schedule(), I wonder if it possible to just
do a "next = prev" and goto picked ... but that adds more latency on
PREEMPT_RT so that is a no go I presume.
> + clear_task_blocked_on(prev, NULL);
> }
>
> pick_again:
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-28 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-27 18:38 [PATCH 0/2] Proxy Execution fixes for v7.1-rc John Stultz
2026-04-27 18:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: proxy-exec: Close race causing workqueue work being delayed John Stultz
2026-04-28 8:06 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-04-28 9:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-28 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-28 13:15 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-28 14:12 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-28 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-29 2:27 ` John Stultz
2026-04-29 8:59 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-30 5:44 ` John Stultz
2026-04-30 5:47 ` John Stultz
2026-04-30 7:25 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-30 21:05 ` John Stultz
2026-04-30 20:40 ` John Stultz
2026-05-01 5:57 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-27 18:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking: mutex: Fix proxy-exec potentially deactivating tasks marked TASK_RUNNING John Stultz
2026-04-28 8:16 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-28 19:50 ` John Stultz
2026-04-30 9:56 ` [PATCH 0/2] Proxy Execution fixes for v7.1-rc Kunwu Chan
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=148b7898-9eef-4203-bb6c-5ba7f523fd01@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=Metin.Kaya@arm.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hupu.gm@gmail.com \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kunwu.chan@linux.dev \
--cc=kuyo.chang@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=sonam.sanju@intel.com \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineethrp@google.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.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