From: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com
Cc: sramana@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
Subject: [PATCH] osq_lock: avoid live-lock issue for RT task
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:19:09 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1500040149-27971-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Live Lock due to task spinning while unqueue of CPU osq_node
from optimistic_spin_queue. Task T1 had decremented mutex count to
acquire the lock on CPU0. Before setting owner it got preempted. On
CPU1 task T2 acquired osq_lock and started spinning on owner of mutex
with preemption disabled. CPU1 runq has one task, so need_resched will
not be set. On CPU0 task T3 tried to acquire osq_lock to spin on the
same mutex. At this time following scenario causes soft lockup:
After preemption of task T1, RT task T3 tried to acquire the same
mutex. It will start spinning on the osq_lock until the lock is available
or need_resched is set. For RT task, need_resched will not be set. Task T3
will not be able to bail out of the infinite loop.
Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 05a3785..99b8d99 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include <linux/percpu.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/osq_lock.h>
+#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
/*
* An MCS like lock especially tailored for optimistic spinning for sleeping
@@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
{
struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
+ struct task_struct *task = current;
int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
int old;
@@ -118,8 +120,13 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
/*
* If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block.
+ * If a task spins on owner on a CPU after acquiring
+ * osq_lock while a RT task spins on another CPU to
+ * acquire osq_lock, it will starve the owner from
+ * completing if owner is to be scheduled on the same CPU.
+ * It will be a live lock.
*/
- if (need_resched())
+ if (need_resched() || rt_task(task))
goto unqueue;
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.,
is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next reply other threads:[~2017-07-14 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-14 13:49 Prateek Sood [this message]
2017-07-18 11:36 ` [PATCH] osq_lock: avoid live-lock issue for RT task Peter Zijlstra
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=1500040149-27971-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org \
--to=prsood@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sramana@codeaurora.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