From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set()
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:53:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-UgI3dSwcLa-CRC@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z-UEkJfkkBBKqCyU@gpd3>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 08:56:12AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 02:24:16PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Andrea.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 03:00:21PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > @@ -7114,12 +7114,22 @@ __bpf_kfunc void scx_bpf_cpuperf_set(s32 cpu, u32 perf)
> > >
> > > if (ops_cpu_valid(cpu, NULL)) {
> > > struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > > + struct rq_flags rf;
> > > + bool rq_unlocked;
> > > +
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + rq_unlocked = (rq != this_rq()) || scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked();
> > > + if (rq_unlocked) {
> > > + rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
> >
> > I don't think this is correct:
> >
> > - This is double-locking regardless of the locking order and thus can lead
> > to ABBA deadlocks.
> >
> > - There's no guarantee that the locked rq is this_rq(). e.g. In wakeup path,
> > the locked rq is on the CPU that the wakeup is targeting, not this_rq().
> >
> > Hmm... this is a bit tricky. SCX_CALL_OP*() always knows whether the rq is
> > locked or not. We might as well pass it the currently locked rq and remember
> > that in a percpu variable, so that scx_bpf_*() can always tell whether and
> > which cpu is rq-locked currently. If unlocked, we can grab the rq lock. If
> > the traget cpu is not the locked one, we can either fail the operation (and
> > trigger ops error) or bounce it to an irq work.
>
> Hm... that's right, it looks like this requires a bit more work than
> expected, but saving the currently locked rq might be helpful also for
> other kfuncs, I'll take a look at this.
What if we lock the rq in the scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() case, and for
all the other cases we ignore locking if rq == this_rq(). If we need to
operate on a different rq than the current one we could either defer the
work or just trigger an ops error. Something like:
if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked()) {
rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
update_rq_clock(rq);
} else if (rq != this_rq()) {
// defer work or ops error
return;
}
lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
rq->scx.cpuperf_target = perf;
cpufreq_update_util(rq, 0);
if (scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked())
rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
AFAICS all the current scx schedulers call scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() from
ops.running(), ops.tick() or ops.init(), so even with the ops error we
should cover all the existent cases.
The only unsupported scenario is calling scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() from
ops.enqueue() / ops.select_cpu(), but maybe we could add the deferred work
later to handle that if needed.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-27 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-25 14:00 [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix missing rq lock in scx_bpf_cpuperf_set() Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 0:24 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 7:56 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 9:53 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-03-27 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 17:15 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-27 17:19 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-27 17:27 ` Andrea Righi
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=Z-UgI3dSwcLa-CRC@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/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