From: "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@codeaurora.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, mingo@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@codeaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, psodagud@codeaurora.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] stop_machine: Disable preemption after queueing stopper threads
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:35:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1531856129-9871-1-git-send-email-isaacm@codeaurora.org> (raw)
This commit:
9fb8d5dc4b64 ("stop_machine, Disable preemption when
waking two stopper threads")
does not fully address the race condition that can occur
as follows:
On one CPU, call it CPU 3, thread 1 invokes
cpu_stop_queue_two_works(2, 3,...), and the execution is such
that thread 1 queues the works for migration/2 and migration/3,
and is preempted after releasing the locks for migration/2 and
migration/3, but before waking the threads.
Then, On CPU 2, a kworker, call it thread 2, is running,
and it invokes cpu_stop_queue_two_works(1, 2,...), such that
thread 2 queues the works for migration/1 and migration/2.
Meanwhile, on CPU 3, thread 1 resumes execution, and wakes
migration/2 and migration/3. This means that when CPU 2
releases the locks for migration/1 and migration/2, but before
it wakes those threads, it can be preempted by migration/2.
If thread 2 is preempted by migration/2, then migration/2 will
execute the first work item successfully, since migration/3
was woken up by CPU 3, but when it goes to execute the second
work item, it disables preemption, calls multi_cpu_stop(),
and thus, CPU 2 will wait forever for migration/1, which should
have been woken up by thread 2. However migration/1 cannot be
woken up by thread 2, since it is a kworker, so it is affine to
CPU 2, but CPU 2 is running migration/2 with preemption
disabled, so thread 2 will never run.
Disable preemption after queueing works for stopper threads
to ensure that the operation of queueing the works and waking
the stopper threads is atomic.
Fixes: 9fb8d5dc4b64 ("stop_machine, Disable preemption when waking two stopper threads")
Co-Developed-by: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@codeaurora.org>
Co-Developed-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacm@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
kernel/stop_machine.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 1ff523d..e190d1e 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -260,6 +260,15 @@ static int cpu_stop_queue_two_works(int cpu1, struct cpu_stop_work *work1,
err = 0;
__cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper1, work1, &wakeq);
__cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper2, work2, &wakeq);
+ /*
+ * The waking up of stopper threads has to happen
+ * in the same scheduling context as the queueing.
+ * Otherwise, there is a possibility of one of the
+ * above stoppers being woken up by another CPU,
+ * and preempting us. This will cause us to n ot
+ * wake up the other stopper forever.
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
unlock:
raw_spin_unlock(&stopper2->lock);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&stopper1->lock);
@@ -271,7 +280,6 @@ static int cpu_stop_queue_two_works(int cpu1, struct cpu_stop_work *work1,
}
if (!err) {
- preempt_disable();
wake_up_q(&wakeq);
preempt_enable();
}
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-17 19:35 Isaac J. Manjarres [this message]
2018-07-24 1:13 ` [PATCH] stop_machine: Disable preemption after queueing stopper threads isaacm
2018-07-24 6:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-07-25 4:15 ` isaacm
2018-07-30 10:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-07-30 11:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-30 12:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-07-30 17:12 ` Sodagudi Prasad
2018-07-30 17:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-07-30 21:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-01 8:07 ` Sodagudi Prasad
2018-08-06 8:37 ` Pavan Kondeti
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=1531856129-9871-1-git-send-email-isaacm@codeaurora.org \
--to=isaacm@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
--cc=psodagud@codeaurora.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).