linux-kernel - Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:38:57 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Subject: sched: Fix switch_to_fair()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Mon Jan 17 17:03:27 CET 2011
>
> When a task is placed back into fair_sched_class, we must update its
> placement, since we don't know how long its been gone, hence its
> vruntime is stale and cannot be trusted.
>
> There is also a case where it was moved from fair_sched_class when it
> was in a blocked state and moved back while it is running, this causes
> an imbalance between DEQUEUE_SLEEP/DEQUEUE_WAKEUP for the fair class
> and leaves vruntime way out there (due to the min_vruntime
> adjustment).
>
> Also update sysrq-n to call the ->switch_{to,from} methods.
>
> Reported-by: Onkalo Samu <samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
>  kernel/sched.c      |    4 ++++
>  kernel/sched_fair.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -4075,6 +4075,22 @@ static void prio_changed_fair(struct rq
>  static void switched_to_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
>                             int running)
>  {
> +       struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
> +       struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +
> +       if (se->on_rq && cfs_rq->curr != se)

(cfs_rq->curr != se) equals to (!running), no?

> +               __dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * se->vruntime can be completely out there, there is no telling
> +        * how long this task was !fair and on what CPU if any it became
> +        * !fair. Therefore, reset it to a known, reasonable value.
> +        */
> +       se->vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;

But this is not fair for !SLEEP task.
You know se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime for !SLEEP task,
then after it go through sched_fair-->sched_rt-->sched_fair by some
means, current cfs_rq->min_vruntime is added back.

But here se is putted before where it should be. Is this what we want?

Thanks,
Yong

-- 
Only stand for myself
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/