linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod)

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]

Message-ID: <4AF38A72.9000900@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:31:14 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: There is something with scheduler (was Re: [patch]
 Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
 [00000000] code: rmmod)

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> A bit of late night cut/paste fixed it right up, so tomorrow, I can redo
> benchmarks etc etc.
> 
> Lai, mind giving this a try?  I believe this will fix your problem as
> well as mine.

My problem: a bound task is run on a different cpu. You haven't describe
how does it happen, how do you think this patch will fix my problem?

> 
> sched: fix runqueue locking buglet.
> 
> Calling set_task_cpu() with the runqueue unlocked is unsafe.  Add cpu_rq_lock()
> locking primitive, and lock the runqueue.  Also, update rq->clock before calling
> set_task_cpu(), as it could be stale.
> 
> Running netperf UDP_STREAM with two pinned tasks with tip 1b9508f applied emitted
> the thoroughly unbelievable result that ratelimiting newidle could produce twice
> the throughput of the virgin kernel.  Reverting to locking the runqueue prior to
> runqueue selection restored benchmarking sanity, as finally did this patchlet.
> 

[...]

> ---
>  kernel/sched.c |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.32.git.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6.32.git/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,32 @@ static struct rq *this_rq_lock(void)
>  	return rq;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * cpu_rq_lock - lock the runqueue a given task resides on and disable
> + * interrupts. Note the ordering: we can safely lookup the cpu_rq without
> + * explicitly disabling preemption.
> + */
> +static struct rq *cpu_rq_lock(int cpu, unsigned long *flags)
> +	__acquires(rq->lock)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq;
> +
> +	for (;;) {
> +		local_irq_save(*flags);
> +		rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +		if (likely(rq == cpu_rq(cpu)))
> +			return rq;
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static inline void cpu_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> +	__releases(rq->lock)
> +{
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
> +}
> +

The above code is totally garbage, cpu_rq(cpu) is constant.

>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
>  /*
>   * Use HR-timers to deliver accurate preemption points.
> @@ -2345,13 +2371,12 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
>  	task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
>  
>  	cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> -	if (cpu != orig_cpu)
> -		set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> -
> -	rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> -
> -	if (rq != orig_rq)
> +	if (cpu != orig_cpu) {
> +		rq = cpu_rq_lock(cpu, &flags);
>  		update_rq_clock(rq);
> +		set_task_cpu(p, cpu);

Process p's runqueue may not have been locked.


> +	} else
> +		rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
>  
>  	if (rq->idle_stamp) {
>  		u64 delta = rq->clock - rq->idle_stamp;
> @@ -2365,7 +2390,6 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
>  	}
>  
>  	WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
> -	cpu = task_cpu(p);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
>  	schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_count);
> 
> 
> 
> 



--
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/