| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100315091027.GA9155@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:10:27 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] make select_fallback_rq() cpuset friendly
Introduce cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback() helper to fix the cpuset problems
with select_fallback_rq(). It can be called from any context and can't use
any cpuset locks including task_lock(). It is called when the task doesn't
have online cpus in ->cpus_allowed but ttwu/etc must be able to find a
suitable cpu.
I am not proud of this patch. Everything which needs such a fact comment
can't be good even if correct. But I'd prefer to not change the locking
rules in the code I hardly understand, and in any case I believe this
simple change make the code much more correct compared to deadlocks we
currently have.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
include/linux/cpuset.h | 7 +++++++
kernel/sched.c | 4 +---
kernel/cpuset.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- 34-rc1/include/linux/cpuset.h~6_FALLBACK_CPUSETS 2010-03-15 09:40:16.000000000 +0100
+++ 34-rc1/include/linux/cpuset.h 2010-03-15 09:42:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ extern int number_of_cpusets; /* How man
extern int cpuset_init(void);
extern void cpuset_init_smp(void);
extern void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct cpumask *mask);
+extern int cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *p);
extern nodemask_t cpuset_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *p);
#define cpuset_current_mems_allowed (current->mems_allowed)
void cpuset_init_current_mems_allowed(void);
@@ -101,6 +102,12 @@ static inline void cpuset_cpus_allowed(s
cpumask_copy(mask, cpu_possible_mask);
}
+static inline int cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ cpumask_copy(&p->cpus_allowed, cpu_possible_mask);
+ return cpumask_any(cpu_active_mask);
+}
+
static inline nodemask_t cpuset_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *p)
{
return node_possible_map;
--- 34-rc1/kernel/sched.c~6_FALLBACK_CPUSETS 2010-03-15 09:41:51.000000000 +0100
+++ 34-rc1/kernel/sched.c 2010-03-15 09:42:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -2292,9 +2292,7 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, s
/* No more Mr. Nice Guy. */
if (unlikely(dest_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
- cpumask_copy(&p->cpus_allowed, cpu_possible_mask);
- dest_cpu = cpumask_any(cpu_active_mask);
-
+ dest_cpu = cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(p);
/*
* Don't tell them about moving exiting tasks or
* kernel threads (both mm NULL), since they never
--- 34-rc1/kernel/cpuset.c~6_FALLBACK_CPUSETS 2010-03-15 09:40:16.000000000 +0100
+++ 34-rc1/kernel/cpuset.c 2010-03-15 09:42:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -2146,6 +2146,48 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_str
mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
}
+int cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+ const struct cpuset *cs;
+ int cpu;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ cs = task_cs(tsk);
+ if (cs)
+ cpumask_copy(&tsk->cpus_allowed, cs->cpus_allowed);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ /*
+ * We own tsk->cpus_allowed, nobody can change it under us.
+ *
+ * But we used cs && cs->cpus_allowed lockless and thus can
+ * race with cgroup_attach_task() or update_cpumask() and get
+ * the wrong tsk->cpus_allowed. However, both cases imply the
+ * subsequent cpuset_change_cpumask()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
+ * which takes task_rq_lock().
+ *
+ * If we are called after it dropped the lock we must see all
+ * changes in tsk_cs()->cpus_allowed. Otherwise we can temporary
+ * set any mask even if it is not right from task_cs() pov,
+ * the pending set_cpus_allowed_ptr() will fix things.
+ */
+
+ cpu = cpumask_any_and(&tsk->cpus_allowed, cpu_active_mask);
+ if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
+ /*
+ * Either tsk->cpus_allowed is wrong (see above) or it
+ * is actually empty. The latter case is only possible
+ * if we are racing with remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset().
+ * Like above we can temporary set any mask and rely on
+ * set_cpus_allowed_ptr() as synchronization point.
+ */
+ cpumask_copy(&tsk->cpus_allowed, cpu_possible_mask);
+ cpu = cpumask_any(cpu_active_mask);
+ }
+
+ return cpu;
+}
+
void cpuset_init_current_mems_allowed(void)
{
nodes_setall(current->mems_allowed);
--
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