From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: sched-ext@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scx: Fix raciness in scx_ops_bypass()
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:47:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241025194728.GA2648@maniforge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zxvz3mlxRm-BxuJW@slm.duckdns.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1852 bytes --]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:39:10AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 12:40:14AM -0500, David Vernet wrote:
> > scx_ops_bypass() can currently race on the ops enable / disable path as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. scx_ops_bypass(true) called on enable path, bypass depth is set to 1
> > 2. An op on the init path exits, which schedules scx_ops_disable_workfn()
> > 3. scx_ops_bypass(false) is called on the disable path, and bypass depth
> > is decremented to 0
> > 4. kthread is scheduled to execute scx_ops_disable_workfn()
> > 5. scx_ops_bypass(true) called, bypass depth set to 1
> > 6. scx_ops_bypass() races when iterating over CPUs
> >
> > Fixing this is difficult because we can't take any locks when enabling
> > bypass due to us not being able to trust the BPF scheduler. This is
>
> We can't use mutexes but can definitely use raw_spinlocks.
Right, fair enough, just need to use a lock where the holder can't be
preempted.
>
> > problematic, because what we really need to do is coordinate between
> > possible concurrent calls of scx_ops_bypass(true) and
> > scx_ops_bypass(false), but the whole point of that code is that we can't
> > use any locks to coordinate. Instead of taking a lock, however, we can
> > instead just serialize the calls to enable and disable bypass by executing
> > the calls on the scx_ops_helper kthread that's currently responsible for
> > disabling a BPF scheduler.
> >
> > This patch therefore adds a new schedule_scx_bypass_delta() function which
> > schedules changes to scx_ops_bypass() to occur on the scx_ops_helper
> > kthread (where necessary).
>
> Can't we just add a static raw_spinlock to protect scx_ops_bypass() body and
> maybe turn scx_ops_bypass_depth into a regular int while at it?
Yeah that's of course a lot simpler, will send a v2.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-25 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-25 5:40 [PATCH 1/2] scx: Fix exit selftest to use custom DSQ David Vernet
2024-10-25 5:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] scx: Fix raciness in scx_ops_bypass() David Vernet
2024-10-25 19:39 ` Tejun Heo
2024-10-25 19:47 ` David Vernet [this message]
2024-10-25 17:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] scx: Fix exit selftest to use custom DSQ Tejun Heo
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=20241025194728.GA2648@maniforge \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@meta.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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