| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 20:43:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix lost reschedule in __cond_resched()
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also not sure if the bug ever happens with preemption
> > > disabled. Sasha, was that you who reported that you cannot
> > > reproduce it without preemption? It strikes me that there's a
> > > race condition in __cond_resched() wrt preemption, for example:
> > > we do
> > >
> > > __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > > __schedule();
> > > __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > >
> > > and in between the __schedule() and __preempt_count_sub(), if
> > > an interrupt comes in and wakes up some important process, it
> > > won't reschedule (because preemption is active), but then we
> > > enable preemption again and don't check whether we should
> > > reschedule (again), and we just go on our merry ways.
> >
> > Indeed, that's a really good find regardless of whether it's the
> > source of these lockups - the (untested) patch below ought to
> > cure that.
> >
> > > Now, I don't see how that could really matter for a long time -
> > > returning to user space will check need_resched, and sleeping
> > > will obviously force a reschedule anyway, so these kinds of
> > > races should at most delay things by just a tiny amount, but
> > > maybe there is some case where we screw up in a bigger way. So
> > > I do *not* believe that the one in __cond_resched() matters,
> > > but I'm giving it as an example of the kind of things that
> > > could go wrong.
> >
> > (as you later note) NOHZ is somewhat special in this regard,
> > because there we try really hard not to run anything
> > periodically, so a lost reschedule will matter more.
> >
> > But ... I'd be surprised if this patch made a difference: it
> > should normally not be possible to go idle with tasks on the
> > runqueue (even with this bug present), and with at least one busy
> > task on the CPU we get the regular scheduler tick which ought to
> > hide such latencies.
> >
> > It's nevertheless a good thing to fix, I'm just not sure it's the
> > root cause of the observed lockup here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
> >
> > --
> >
> > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index bb398c0c5f08..532809aa0544 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4207,6 +4207,8 @@ static void __cond_resched(void)
> > __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > __schedule();
> > __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> > + if (need_resched())
> > + __schedule();
> > }
>
> Nice catch! This indeed matters a lot for full nohz where a lost reschedule
> interrupt might be ignored and not fixed with a near tick. Although even if
> it is fixed by a tick, a missed reschedule delayed by HZ involves latency issue.
>
> Anyway, probably the above __schedule() should stay as a preemption point
> to make sure that a TASK_[UN]INTERRUPTIBLE is handled as expected and avoids
> early task deactivation.
>
> Such as:
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 240157c..6e942f3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2922,6 +2922,21 @@ void __sched schedule_preempt_disabled(void)
> preempt_disable();
> }
>
> +static void __preempt_schedule(void)
> +{
> + do {
> + __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> + __schedule();
> + __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> +
> + /*
> + * Check again in case we missed a preemption opportunity
> + * between schedule and now.
> + */
> + barrier();
> + } while (need_resched());
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> /*
> * this is the entry point to schedule() from in-kernel preemption
> @@ -2937,17 +2952,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __sched notrace preempt_schedule(void)
> if (likely(!preemptible()))
> return;
>
> - do {
> - __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> - __schedule();
> - __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> -
> - /*
> - * Check again in case we missed a preemption opportunity
> - * between schedule and now.
> - */
> - barrier();
> - } while (need_resched());
> + __preempt_schedule();
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(preempt_schedule);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(preempt_schedule);
> @@ -4249,9 +4254,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>
> static void __cond_resched(void)
> {
> - __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> - __schedule();
> - __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> + __preempt_schedule();
> }
Yeah, agreed, your variant is even nicer.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists