public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Prevent balance_push() on remote runqueues
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:21:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87eeae11cr.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tujb0yn1.ffs@tglx>

On Fri, Aug 27 2021 at 16:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> sched_setscheduler() and rt_mutex_setprio() invoke the run-queue balance
> callback after changing priorities or the scheduling class of a task. The
> run-queue for which the callback is invoked can be local or remote.
>
> That's not a problem for the regular rq::push_work which is serialized with
> a busy flag in the run-queue struct, but for the balance_push() work which
> is only valid to be invoked on the outgoing CPU that's wrong. It not only
> triggers the debug warning, but also leaves the per CPU variable push_work
> unprotected, which can result in double enqueues on the stop machine list.
>
> Remove the warning and check that the function is invoked on the
> outgoing CPU. If not, just return and do nothing.
>
> Fixes: ae7927023243 ("sched: Optimize finish_lock_switch()")
> Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c |    6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -8523,7 +8523,6 @@ static void balance_push(struct rq *rq)
>  	struct task_struct *push_task = rq->curr;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> -	SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->cpu != smp_processor_id());
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Ensure the thing is persistent until balance_push_set(.on = false);
> @@ -8531,9 +8530,10 @@ static void balance_push(struct rq *rq)
>  	rq->balance_callback = &balance_push_callback;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Only active while going offline.
> +	 * Only active while going offline and when invoked on the outgoing
> +	 * CPU.
>  	 */
> -	if (!cpu_dying(rq->cpu))
> +	if (!cpu_dying(rq->cpu) && rq == this_rq())
>  		return;

Stupid me. The last minute change of moving the condition into the same
line fatfingered != to ==. Will resend ...

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-28  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-27 14:07 [PATCH] sched: Prevent balance_push() on remote runqueues Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-28  7:21 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-08-28 13:55   ` [PATCH V2] " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-28 17:17     ` Tao Zhou
2021-08-30  9:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-09  9:38     ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner

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=87eeae11cr.ffs@tglx \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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