* [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed()
@ 2022-11-18 19:33 Waiman Long
2022-11-21 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Waiman Long @ 2022-11-18 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot,
Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
Cc: Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Waiman Long
Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in
do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously
set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed()
may not be in a context where kfree() can be safely called. So the
following splats may be printed:
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
To avoid these problems without leaking memory, the free cpumask is now
put into a lockless list to be reused in a later sched_setaffinity()
call instead.
Fixes: 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in do_set_cpus_allowed()")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 78b2d5cabcc5..8df51b08bb38 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2527,6 +2527,11 @@ int push_cpu_stop(void *arg)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * A lockless list of user cpumask available to be reused.
+ */
+static LLIST_HEAD(free_cpumasks);
+
/*
* sched_class::set_cpus_allowed must do the below, but is not required to
* actually call this function.
@@ -2606,7 +2611,14 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
};
__do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac);
- kfree(ac.user_mask);
+ if (ac.user_mask) {
+ /*
+ * We may not be in a context where kfree() can be called.
+ * Put the free user_mask in free_cpumasks to be freed or
+ * used later.
+ */
+ llist_add((struct llist_node *)ac.user_mask, &free_cpumasks);
+ }
}
int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src,
@@ -8194,7 +8206,7 @@ __sched_setaffinity(struct task_struct *p, struct affinity_context *ctx)
long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
{
struct affinity_context ac;
- struct cpumask *user_mask;
+ struct cpumask *user_mask = NULL;
struct task_struct *p;
int retval;
@@ -8229,7 +8241,15 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
if (retval)
goto out_put_task;
- user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);
+ /*
+ * Use the element in the free_cpumasks, if available.
+ */
+ if (!llist_empty(&free_cpumasks))
+ user_mask = (struct cpumask *)llist_del_first(&free_cpumasks);
+
+ if (!user_mask)
+ user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);
+
if (!user_mask) {
retval = -ENOMEM;
goto out_put_task;
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-18 19:33 [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() Waiman Long @ 2022-11-21 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-21 15:04 ` Waiman Long 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-21 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Waiman Long Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in > do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously > set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() 'some' ? There's only 3 or so, which one triggers this? > may not be in a context where kfree() can be safely called. So the > following splats may be printed: > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context > > To avoid these problems without leaking memory, the free cpumask is now > put into a lockless list to be reused in a later sched_setaffinity() > call instead. Urgh.. depending on which of the callsites it is, it's probably simpler to just rework the caller to not use do_set_cpus_allowed(), no? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-21 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-21 15:04 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Waiman Long @ 2022-11-21 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel On 11/21/22 05:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in >> do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously >> set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() > 'some' ? There's only 3 or so, which one triggers this? It happenned at __kthread_bind_mask() where do_set_cpus_allowed() is called with pi_lock held. [ 1084.820105] <TASK> [ 1084.820110] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x81 [ 1084.820117] check_noncircular+0x103/0x120 [ 10[ 1084.820160] lock_acquire+0xba/0x230 [ 1084.820164] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 [ 1084.820172] ? do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 [ 1084.820181] rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0 [ 1084.820184] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 [ 1084.820188] kfree+0x10f/0x380 [ 1084.820195] do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 [ 1084.820203] kthread_bind_mask+0x4a/0x70 [ 1084.820211] create_worker+0xfb/0x1a0 [ 1084.820220] worker_thread+0x2e3/0x3c0 [ 1084.820226] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 [ 1084.820230] kthread+0x111/0x130 [ 1084.820236] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 [ 1084.820244] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 [ 1084.820258] </TASK> [ 1084.820260] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46 It shows up with PREEMPT_RT kernel. > >> may not be in a context where kfree() can be safely called. So the >> following splats may be printed: >> >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected >> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context >> >> To avoid these problems without leaking memory, the free cpumask is now >> put into a lockless list to be reused in a later sched_setaffinity() >> call instead. > Urgh.. depending on which of the callsites it is, it's probably simpler > to just rework the caller to not use do_set_cpus_allowed(), no? Maybe. One thing that I am not clear about is why user_cpus_ptr is set in the first place. Cheers, Longman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-21 15:04 ` Waiman Long @ 2022-11-22 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-22 15:23 ` Waiman Long 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-22 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Waiman Long Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Paul McKenney On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:04:33AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 11/21/22 05:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in > > > do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously > > > set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() > > 'some' ? There's only 3 or so, which one triggers this? > > It happenned at __kthread_bind_mask() where do_set_cpus_allowed() is called > with pi_lock held. > > [ 1084.820105] <TASK> > [ 1084.820110] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x81 > [ 1084.820117] check_noncircular+0x103/0x120 > [ 10[ 1084.820160] lock_acquire+0xba/0x230 > [ 1084.820164] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 > [ 1084.820172] ? do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 > [ 1084.820181] rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0 > [ 1084.820184] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 > [ 1084.820188] kfree+0x10f/0x380 > [ 1084.820195] do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 > [ 1084.820203] kthread_bind_mask+0x4a/0x70 > [ 1084.820211] create_worker+0xfb/0x1a0 > [ 1084.820220] worker_thread+0x2e3/0x3c0 > [ 1084.820226] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 > [ 1084.820230] kthread+0x111/0x130 > [ 1084.820236] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 > [ 1084.820244] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 > [ 1084.820258] </TASK> > [ 1084.820260] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at > kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46 > > It shows up with PREEMPT_RT kernel. Oh, I see .. > Maybe. One thing that I am not clear about is why user_cpus_ptr is set in > the first place. Perhaps someone set an affinity on kthreadd ? But I'm thinking this exact problem is also possible (rather more likely even) with select_fallback_rq() that too holds pi_lock (which account for both other users of this function). Bah. And the allocation is just the one long in size (for small configs) which is just enough space for a single linked list like you had. Urgh. The below is yuck too, and I'm not sure Paul wants us to use kvfree_call_rcu() without its wrapper. --- diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 78b2d5cabcc5..0d0af0fc7fcf 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2606,7 +2606,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask) }; __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); - kfree(ac.user_mask); + /* + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using + * kfree_rcu(). + */ + kvfree_call_rcu((struct rcu_head *)ac.user_mask, (rcu_callback_t)0); } int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, @@ -8196,7 +8201,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) struct affinity_context ac; struct cpumask *user_mask; struct task_struct *p; - int retval; + int retval, size; rcu_read_lock(); @@ -8229,7 +8234,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) if (retval) goto out_put_task; - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); + /* + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. + */ + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(struct rcu_head)); + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!user_mask) { retval = -ENOMEM; goto out_put_task; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-22 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-22 15:23 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 16:33 ` Paul E. McKenney 2022-11-22 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Waiman Long @ 2022-11-22 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Paul McKenney On 11/22/22 07:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:04:33AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 11/21/22 05:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>>> Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in >>>> do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously >>>> set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() >>> 'some' ? There's only 3 or so, which one triggers this? >> It happenned at __kthread_bind_mask() where do_set_cpus_allowed() is called >> with pi_lock held. >> >> [ 1084.820105] <TASK> >> [ 1084.820110] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x81 >> [ 1084.820117] check_noncircular+0x103/0x120 >> [ 10[ 1084.820160] lock_acquire+0xba/0x230 >> [ 1084.820164] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 >> [ 1084.820172] ? do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 >> [ 1084.820181] rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0 >> [ 1084.820184] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 >> [ 1084.820188] kfree+0x10f/0x380 >> [ 1084.820195] do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 >> [ 1084.820203] kthread_bind_mask+0x4a/0x70 >> [ 1084.820211] create_worker+0xfb/0x1a0 >> [ 1084.820220] worker_thread+0x2e3/0x3c0 >> [ 1084.820226] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 >> [ 1084.820230] kthread+0x111/0x130 >> [ 1084.820236] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 >> [ 1084.820244] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 >> [ 1084.820258] </TASK> >> [ 1084.820260] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at >> kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46 >> >> It shows up with PREEMPT_RT kernel. > Oh, I see .. > >> Maybe. One thing that I am not clear about is why user_cpus_ptr is set in >> the first place. > Perhaps someone set an affinity on kthreadd ? > > But I'm thinking this exact problem is also possible (rather more likely > even) with select_fallback_rq() that too holds pi_lock (which account > for both other users of this function). > > Bah. > > And the allocation is just the one long in size (for small configs) > which is just enough space for a single linked list like you had. That is exactly the reason why I use lockless list. > > Urgh. > > The below is yuck too, and I'm not sure Paul wants us to use > kvfree_call_rcu() without its wrapper. > > --- > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 78b2d5cabcc5..0d0af0fc7fcf 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -2606,7 +2606,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask) > }; > > __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); > - kfree(ac.user_mask); > + /* > + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible > + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using > + * kfree_rcu(). > + */ > + kvfree_call_rcu((struct rcu_head *)ac.user_mask, (rcu_callback_t)0); > } I guess you need to do a NULL check before calling kvfree_call_rcu() as I don't think kvfree_call_rcu() does that. Also it is unlikely that we need to call it. > > int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, > @@ -8196,7 +8201,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) > struct affinity_context ac; > struct cpumask *user_mask; > struct task_struct *p; > - int retval; > + int retval, size; > > rcu_read_lock(); > > @@ -8229,7 +8234,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) > if (retval) > goto out_put_task; > > - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); > + /* > + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. > + */ > + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(struct rcu_head)); > + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!user_mask) { > retval = -ENOMEM; > goto out_put_task; I guess that will work too. Just like you, I am a bit uneasy to call into kvfree_call_rcu() directly as it may change in the future. How about iff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2593,6 +2593,11 @@ __do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct affinity_context *ctx) set_next_task(rq, p); } +union cpumask_rcuhead { + void *cpumask; + struct rcu_head rcu; +}; + /* * Used for kthread_bind() and select_fallback_rq(), in both cases the user * affinity (if any) should be destroyed too. @@ -2606,7 +2611,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask) }; __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); - kfree(ac.user_mask); + /* + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using + * kfree_rcu(). + */ + kfree_rcu((union cpumask_rcuhead *)ac.user_mask, rcu); } int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, @@ -8196,7 +8206,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) struct affinity_context ac; struct cpumask *user_mask; struct task_struct *p; - int retval; + int retval, size; rcu_read_lock(); @@ -8229,7 +8239,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) if (retval) goto out_put_task; - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); + /* + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. + */ + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(union cpumask_rcuhead)); + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!user_mask) { retval = -ENOMEM; goto out_put_task; Cheers, Longman ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-22 15:23 ` Waiman Long @ 2022-11-22 16:33 ` Paul E. McKenney 2022-11-22 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2022-11-22 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:23:43AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > On 11/22/22 07:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:04:33AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > On 11/21/22 05:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > > Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in > > > > > do_set_cpus_allowed()") may call kfree() if user_cpus_ptr was previously > > > > > set. Unfortunately, some of the callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() > > > > 'some' ? There's only 3 or so, which one triggers this? > > > It happenned at __kthread_bind_mask() where do_set_cpus_allowed() is called > > > with pi_lock held. > > > > > > [ 1084.820105] <TASK> > > > [ 1084.820110] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x81 > > > [ 1084.820117] check_noncircular+0x103/0x120 > > > [ 10[ 1084.820160] lock_acquire+0xba/0x230 > > > [ 1084.820164] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 > > > [ 1084.820172] ? do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 > > > [ 1084.820181] rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0 > > > [ 1084.820184] ? kfree+0x10f/0x380 > > > [ 1084.820188] kfree+0x10f/0x380 > > > [ 1084.820195] do_set_cpus_allowed+0x40/0x60 > > > [ 1084.820203] kthread_bind_mask+0x4a/0x70 > > > [ 1084.820211] create_worker+0xfb/0x1a0 > > > [ 1084.820220] worker_thread+0x2e3/0x3c0 > > > [ 1084.820226] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 > > > [ 1084.820230] kthread+0x111/0x130 > > > [ 1084.820236] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 > > > [ 1084.820244] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 > > > [ 1084.820258] </TASK> > > > [ 1084.820260] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at > > > kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46 > > > > > > It shows up with PREEMPT_RT kernel. > > Oh, I see .. > > > > > Maybe. One thing that I am not clear about is why user_cpus_ptr is set in > > > the first place. > > Perhaps someone set an affinity on kthreadd ? > > > > But I'm thinking this exact problem is also possible (rather more likely > > even) with select_fallback_rq() that too holds pi_lock (which account > > for both other users of this function). > > > > Bah. > > > > And the allocation is just the one long in size (for small configs) > > which is just enough space for a single linked list like you had. > That is exactly the reason why I use lockless list. > > > > Urgh. > > > > The below is yuck too, and I'm not sure Paul wants us to use > > kvfree_call_rcu() without its wrapper. > > > > --- > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > index 78b2d5cabcc5..0d0af0fc7fcf 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -2606,7 +2606,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask) > > }; > > __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); > > - kfree(ac.user_mask); > > + /* > > + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible > > + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using > > + * kfree_rcu(). > > + */ > > + kvfree_call_rcu((struct rcu_head *)ac.user_mask, (rcu_callback_t)0); > > } > > I guess you need to do a NULL check before calling kvfree_call_rcu() as I > don't think kvfree_call_rcu() does that. Also it is unlikely that we need to > call it. Indeed, the NULL check is in kvfree_rcu_arg_2(). By the time you get to kvfree_call_rcu, the pointer is assumed to be non-NULL. > > int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, > > @@ -8196,7 +8201,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) > > struct affinity_context ac; > > struct cpumask *user_mask; > > struct task_struct *p; > > - int retval; > > + int retval, size; > > rcu_read_lock(); > > @@ -8229,7 +8234,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask) > > if (retval) > > goto out_put_task; > > - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); > > + /* > > + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. > > + */ > > + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(struct rcu_head)); > > + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!user_mask) { > > retval = -ENOMEM; > > goto out_put_task; > > I guess that will work too. Just like you, I am a bit uneasy to call into > kvfree_call_rcu() directly as it may change in the future. How about > > iff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -2593,6 +2593,11 @@ __do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct > affinity_context *ctx) > set_next_task(rq, p); > } > > +union cpumask_rcuhead { > + void *cpumask; > + struct rcu_head rcu; > +}; > + > /* > * Used for kthread_bind() and select_fallback_rq(), in both cases the user > * affinity (if any) should be destroyed too. > @@ -2606,7 +2611,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const > struct cpumask *new_mask) > }; > > __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); > - kfree(ac.user_mask); > + /* > + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible > + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using > + * kfree_rcu(). > + */ > + kfree_rcu((union cpumask_rcuhead *)ac.user_mask, rcu); This looks plausible to me. Thanx, Paul > } > > int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, > @@ -8196,7 +8206,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask > *in_mask) > struct affinity_context ac; > struct cpumask *user_mask; > struct task_struct *p; > - int retval; > + int retval, size; > > rcu_read_lock(); > > @@ -8229,7 +8239,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct > cpumask *in_mask) > if (retval) > goto out_put_task; > > - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); > + /* > + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. > + */ > + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(union cpumask_rcuhead)); > + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!user_mask) { > retval = -ENOMEM; > goto out_put_task; > > Cheers, > Longman > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-22 15:23 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 16:33 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2022-11-22 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-22 19:30 ` Waiman Long 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-22 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Waiman Long Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Paul McKenney On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:23:43AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -2593,6 +2593,11 @@ __do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct > affinity_context *ctx) > set_next_task(rq, p); > } > > +union cpumask_rcuhead { > + void *cpumask; > + struct rcu_head rcu; > +}; > + Hehe; I had this union too; I just figured it'd be nice to not have to spend these 4 lines to express this. Esp. since we're casting pointers *anyway*. > /* > * Used for kthread_bind() and select_fallback_rq(), in both cases the user > * affinity (if any) should be destroyed too. > @@ -2606,7 +2611,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const > struct cpumask *new_mask) > }; > > __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); > - kfree(ac.user_mask); > + /* > + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible > + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using > + * kfree_rcu(). > + */ > + kfree_rcu((union cpumask_rcuhead *)ac.user_mask, rcu); > } > > int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, > @@ -8196,7 +8206,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask > *in_mask) > struct affinity_context ac; > struct cpumask *user_mask; > struct task_struct *p; > - int retval; > + int retval, size; > > rcu_read_lock(); > > @@ -8229,7 +8239,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct > cpumask *in_mask) > if (retval) > goto out_put_task; > > - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); > + /* > + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. > + */ > + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(union cpumask_rcuhead)); > + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!user_mask) { > retval = -ENOMEM; > goto out_put_task; > We also should fix the allocation in dup_user_cpus_ptr() -- perhaps pull the thing into a helper. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-22 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-22 19:30 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Waiman Long @ 2022-11-22 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Paul McKenney On 11/22/22 14:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:23:43AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c >> index 78b2d5cabcc5..5fac4aa6ac7f 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c >> @@ -2593,6 +2593,11 @@ __do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct >> affinity_context *ctx) >> set_next_task(rq, p); >> } >> >> +union cpumask_rcuhead { >> + void *cpumask; >> + struct rcu_head rcu; >> +}; >> + > Hehe; I had this union too; I just figured it'd be nice to not have to > spend these 4 lines to express this. Esp. since we're casting pointers > *anyway*. Well, that is true. As long as the NULL check is there, I am OK with calling kvfree_call_rcu() directly if Paul doesn't object. >> /* >> * Used for kthread_bind() and select_fallback_rq(), in both cases the user >> * affinity (if any) should be destroyed too. >> @@ -2606,7 +2611,12 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const >> struct cpumask *new_mask) >> }; >> >> __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, &ac); >> - kfree(ac.user_mask); >> + /* >> + * Because this is called with p->pi_lock held, it is not possible >> + * to use kfree() here (when PREEMPT_RT=y), therefore punt to using >> + * kfree_rcu(). >> + */ >> + kfree_rcu((union cpumask_rcuhead *)ac.user_mask, rcu); >> } >> >> int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, >> @@ -8196,7 +8206,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask >> *in_mask) >> struct affinity_context ac; >> struct cpumask *user_mask; >> struct task_struct *p; >> - int retval; >> + int retval, size; >> >> rcu_read_lock(); >> >> @@ -8229,7 +8239,11 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct >> cpumask *in_mask) >> if (retval) >> goto out_put_task; >> >> - user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); >> + /* >> + * See do_set_cpus_allowed() for the rcu_head usage. >> + */ >> + size = max_t(int, cpumask_size(), sizeof(union cpumask_rcuhead)); >> + user_mask = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); >> if (!user_mask) { >> retval = -ENOMEM; >> goto out_put_task; >> > We also should fix the allocation in dup_user_cpus_ptr() -- perhaps pull > the thing into a helper. > I have just sent out a new patch to fix that before I saw your email. I do forgot to put -tip in the subject line. Cheers, Longman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() 2022-11-22 19:30 ` Waiman Long @ 2022-11-22 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2022-11-22 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Waiman Long Cc: Ingo Molnar, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Phil Auld, linux-kernel, Paul McKenney On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 02:30:38PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > I have just sent out a new patch to fix that before I saw your email. I do > forgot to put -tip in the subject line. I found it; I'll stare at it in the morning. Things don't seem to want to make much sense anymore today :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-22 19:59 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-11-18 19:33 [PATCH-tip] sched: Don't call kfree() in do_set_cpus_allowed() Waiman Long 2022-11-21 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-21 15:04 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-22 15:23 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 16:33 ` Paul E. McKenney 2022-11-22 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 2022-11-22 19:30 ` Waiman Long 2022-11-22 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
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).