Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/dl: Implement cancel_dl_timer() to use in switched_from_dl()

Juri Lelli
2014-10-22T10:00:34Z

On 21/10/14 15:21, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> В Вт, 21/10/2014 в 12:41 +0100, Juri Lelli пишет:
>> On 21/10/14 11:48, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> В Вт, 21/10/2014 в 11:30 +0100, Juri Lelli пишет:
>>>> Hi Kirill,
>>>>
>>>> sorry for the late reply, but I was busy doing other stuff and then
>>>> travelling.
>>>>
>>>> On 02/10/14 11:05, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>> В Чт, 02/10/2014 в 11:34 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 01:04:22AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() may bring a suprise, its call may fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, not really a surprise that, its a _try_ operation after all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>>> ... dl_task_timer raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>>> ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ...
>>>>>>> switched_from_dl() ... ...
>>>>>>> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ... ...
>>>>>>> switched_to_fair() ... ...
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... (asquired)
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> do_exit() ... ...
>>>>>>> schedule() ... ...
>>>>>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>>> ... ... (asquired)
>>>>>>> put_task_struct() ... ...
>>>>>>> free_task_struct() ... ...
>>>>>>> ... ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>>> ... (asquired) ...
>>>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>>>> ... Surprise!!! ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, let's implement 100% guaranteed way to cancel the timer and let's
>>>>>>> be sure we are safe even in very unlikely situations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do not create any problem with rq unlocking, because it already
>>>>>>> may happed below in pull_dl_task(). No problem with deadline tasks
>>>>>>> balancing too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't sound right. pull_dl_task() is an entirely different
>>>>>> callchain than switched_from(). Now it might still be fine, but you
>>>>>> cannot compare it with pull_dl_task.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that caller of switched_from_dl() already knows about this situation,
>>>>> and we do not limit the area of its use.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean with "the caller already knows...". Also, can you
>>>> detail more about the different callchains?
>>>
>>> We have only caller of switched_from_dl(). It's check_class_changed().
>>> This function doesn't suppose that lock is always locked during its call.
>>>
>>> What other details you want?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, now is more clear, thanks. I was just wondering about what Peter
>> asked. If you can detail more about why we are still fine with it,
>> instead that just "it already was possible in pull_dl_task() below",
>> that would be nice to have.
>>
>> Also, check_class_changed() is called from several places
>> (rt_mutex_setprio() for example), are we fine with all this callplaces
>> as well?
>
> Yeah. New code in the patch is working when hrtimer_try_to_cancel() fails.
> This means the callback is running. In this case hrtimer_cancel() is just
> waiting till the callback is finished.
>
> Since we are in switched_from_dl(), new class is not dl_sched_class and
> new prio is not less MAX_DL_PRIO. So, the callback returns early just
> after !dl_task() check. After that hrtimer_cancel() returns back too.
>
> The above is:
>
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
> ... dl_task_timer()
> ... raw_spin_lock(rq->lock);
> switched_from_dl() ...
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ...
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock); ...
> hrtimer_cancel() ...
> ... raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock);
> ... return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> ... ...
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
>
>
> But the below is also possible:
> dl_task_timer()
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock);
> ...
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock);
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
> switched_from_dl() ...
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ...
> ... return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock); ...
> hrtimer_cancel(); ...
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
>
> In this case hrtimer_cancel() returns immediately. Very unlikely case,
> just to mention.
>
>
> Nobody can manipulate the task, because check_class_changed() is
> always called with pi_lock locked. Nobody can force the task to
> participate in (concurrent) priority inheritance schemes (the same reason).
>
> All concurrent task operations require pi_lock, which is held by us.
> No deadlocks with dl_task_timer() are possible, because it returns
> right after !dl_task() check (it does nothing).
>

Ok, it looks right to me. It would be nice to have what above and the
original explanation of the bug in the changelog.

>>>>
>>>> Do you have any test for this situation? Do you experienced any crash?
>>>> As you know, the replenishment timer is of key importance for us, and
>>>> I'd like to be 100% sure we don't introduce any problems with this
>>>> change :).
>>>
>>> No, I haven't written any tests to reproduce namely this situation.
>>> I found it by code analyzing. The same way we fixed the problem
>>> with rq change in dl_task_timer():
>>>
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg49080.html
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but I did write a test for that race:
>>
>> "Juri Lelli reports he got this race when dl_bandwidth_enabled()
>> was not set."
>>
>> And after that I felt more confident about the change :).
>
> Ok, good. I forgot.
>
>>> Are you agree the race is here? It's my fix, and if brings a problem
>>> please clarify it.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it seems that the race may happen. I'm just saying that it would
>> be nice to see it happening before we fix the thing. I wish I have some
>> time to try to setup a test. Even if I can't spot any problems with your
>> patch, apart from small comments below, not being completely confident
>> that this doesn't introduce regression elsewhere brought me to ask from
>> more details.
>
> Sadly, I have no time to write a test for this bug. I can change the comment
> and add the description I posted above. Or I can add more description
> if you say what should be added else.
>

So, if you are ok with it, I'd say I can take some time to do a little
testing anyway, as the bug is there, but nobody (except you) noticed
that yet :).

>>
>>> I'm waiting for your reply.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kirill
>>>
>>>>> Does this sound better?
>>>>>
>>>>> [PATCH] sched/dl: Implement cancel_dl_timer() to use in switched_from_dl()
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently used hrtimer_try_to_cancel() is racy:
>>>>>
>>>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ... dl_task_timer raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ...
>>>>> switched_from_dl() ... ...
>>>>> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ... ...
>>>>> switched_to_fair() ... ...
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... (asquired)
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> do_exit() ... ...
>>>>> schedule() ... ...
>>>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ... ... (asquired)
>>>>> put_task_struct() ... ...
>>>>> free_task_struct() ... ...
>>>>> ... ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ... (asquired) ...
>>>>> ... ... ...
>>>>> ... (use after free) ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's implement 100% guaranteed way to cancel the timer and let's
>>>>> be sure we are safe even in very unlikely situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> rq unlocking does not limit the area of switched_from_dl() use, because
>>>>> it already was possible in pull_dl_task() below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>>> index abfaf3d..63f8b4a 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>>> @@ -555,11 +555,6 @@ void init_dl_task_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->dl_timer;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (hrtimer_active(timer)) {
>>>>> - hrtimer_try_to_cancel(timer);
>>>>> - return;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> -
>>>>> hrtimer_init(timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>>>>> timer->function = dl_task_timer;
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -1567,10 +1562,34 @@ void init_sched_dl_class(void)
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>>>>>
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Surely cancel task's dl_timer. May drop rq->lock.
>>>>> + */
>>
>> Maybe we can add comments explaining why we are fine releasing the lock
>> here.
>>

Does "Ensure p's dl_timer is cancelled. May drop rq->lock." sound better?

>>>>> +static void cancel_dl_timer(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct hrtimer *dl_timer = &p->dl.dl_timer;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Nobody will change task's class if pi_lock is held */
>>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (hrtimer_active(dl_timer)) {
>>>>> + int ret = hrtimer_try_to_cancel(dl_timer);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (unlikely(ret == -1)) {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Note, p may migrate OR new deadline tasks
>>>>> + * may appear in rq when we are unlocking it.
>>>>> + */
>>
>> Yeah, some comments also here on why this is all good?
>>

Here you say what may happen. Can you add something saying why we are
fine with this happening? Just for future reference...

Thanks again!

Best,

- Juri

>> Thanks a lot Kirill!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> - Juri
>>
>>>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>>>>> + hrtimer_cancel(dl_timer);
>>>>> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.dl_timer) && !dl_policy(p->policy))
>>>>> - hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&p->dl.dl_timer);
>>>>> + cancel_dl_timer(rq, p);
>>>>>
>>>>> __dl_clear_params(p);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>