| 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: <1375817615.25420.48.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:33:35 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 12:04 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> B1;3202;0cOn Thu, 2 May 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:12 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 06:47:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:37:22AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > [ Blast from the past! ]
> > > > >
> > > > > When merging in 3.4.42 into the 3.4-rt branch I hit a conflict with the
> > > > > try_to_wake_up_local() call. It seems that the 3.4-rt patch has this
> > > > > patch applied. Although, this is not applied to any of the other -rt patches.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I take that back. It's in 3.0-rt, 3.2-rt and 3.4-rt, but it's not in 3.6-rt
> > > > nor in 3.8-rt.
> > >
> > > So, it's all good? Or is there something I need to look into?
> >
> > It looks good to me. I don't know why it's not in 3.6-rt or 3.8-rt. Was
> > there a reason that Thomas took it out? I don't know. Maybe it's not
> > needed or he thought it went mainline?
>
> I dropped it on purpose as I was sure, that it's safe.
>
> But after you poked me yesterday I spent quite some time staring at
> that code and found that I missed the following:
>
> worker A is about to go idle and the pool->idle_list is empty
>
> calls worker_enter_idle()
>
> list_add(&worker->entry, &pool->idle_list);
>
> idle_list.prev = &worker->entry;
>
> Preemption
>
> Worker B runs and blocks.
>
> wq_worker_sleeping() sees !list_empty(&pool->idle_list)
>
> because idle_list.prev points already to worker A
>
> Then first_worker returns idle_list.next which points to idle list
> so we return some random crap to wakeup.
>
> So yes, I've donned a brown paperbag and we need to bring back that
> change and think about making it more palatable for mainline.
>
> Find an untested patch against 3.6-rt below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
> ---
> Index: linux-stable-rt/kernel/sched/core.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable-rt.orig/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ linux-stable-rt/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1452,10 +1452,6 @@ static void ttwu_activate(struct rq *rq,
> {
> activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
> p->on_rq = 1;
> -
> - /* if a worker is waking up, notify workqueue */
> - if (p->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
> - wq_worker_waking_up(p, cpu_of(rq));
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1714,42 +1710,6 @@ out:
> }
>
> /**
> - * try_to_wake_up_local - try to wake up a local task with rq lock held
> - * @p: the thread to be awakened
> - *
> - * Put @p on the run-queue if it's not already there. The caller must
> - * ensure that this_rq() is locked, @p is bound to this_rq() and not
> - * the current task.
> - */
> -static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct task_struct *p)
> -{
> - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> -
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rq != this_rq()) ||
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(p == current))
> - return;
> -
> - lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> -
> - if (!raw_spin_trylock(&p->pi_lock)) {
> - raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> - raw_spin_lock(&p->pi_lock);
> - raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> - }
> -
> - if (!(p->state & TASK_NORMAL))
> - goto out;
> -
> - if (!p->on_rq)
> - ttwu_activate(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
> -
> - ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, 0);
> - ttwu_stat(p, smp_processor_id(), 0);
> -out:
> - raw_spin_unlock(&p->pi_lock);
> -}
> -
> -/**
> * wake_up_process - Wake up a specific process
> * @p: The process to be woken up.
> *
> @@ -3627,19 +3587,6 @@ need_resched:
> } else {
> deactivate_task(rq, prev, DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
> prev->on_rq = 0;
> -
> - /*
> - * If a worker went to sleep, notify and ask workqueue
> - * whether it wants to wake up a task to maintain
> - * concurrency.
> - */
> - if (prev->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) {
> - struct task_struct *to_wakeup;
> -
> - to_wakeup = wq_worker_sleeping(prev, cpu);
> - if (to_wakeup)
> - try_to_wake_up_local(to_wakeup);
> - }
> }
> switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
> }
> @@ -3683,6 +3630,14 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(str
> {
> if (!tsk->state || tsk_is_pi_blocked(tsk))
> return;
> +
> + /*
> + * If a worker went to sleep, notify and ask workqueue whether
> + * it wants to wake up a task to maintain concurrency.
> + */
> + if (tsk->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
> + wq_worker_sleeping(tsk);
> +
> /*
> * If we are going to sleep and we have plugged IO queued,
> * make sure to submit it to avoid deadlocks.
> @@ -3691,12 +3646,19 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(str
> blk_schedule_flush_plug(tsk);
> }
>
> +static inline void sched_update_worker(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + if (tsk->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
> + wq_worker_running(tsk);
I think you forgot to add the wq_worker_running() function. As I don't
see it in 3.6-rt or 3.8-rt.
-- Steve
> +}
> +
> asmlinkage void __sched schedule(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>
> sched_submit_work(tsk);
> __schedule();
> + sched_update_worker(tsk);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
>
> Index: linux-stable-rt/kernel/workqueue.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable-rt.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ linux-stable-rt/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ struct worker {
> /* for rebinding worker to CPU */
> struct idle_rebind *idle_rebind; /* L: for idle worker */
> struct work_struct rebind_work; /* L: for busy worker */
> + int sleeping; /* None */
> };
>
> struct worker_pool {
> @@ -691,66 +692,55 @@ static void wake_up_worker(struct worker
> }
>
> /**
> - * wq_worker_waking_up - a worker is waking up
> - * @task: task waking up
> - * @cpu: CPU @task is waking up to
> + * wq_worker_waking_up - a worker is running again
> + * @task: task returning from sleep
> *
> - * This function is called during try_to_wake_up() when a worker is
> - * being awoken.
> - *
> - * CONTEXT:
> - * spin_lock_irq(rq->lock)
> + * This function is called when a worker returns from a blocking
> + * schedule.
> */
> -void wq_worker_waking_up(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int cpu)
> +void wq_worker_waking_up(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task);
>
> + if (!worker->sleeping)
> + return;
> +
> if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING))
> atomic_inc(get_pool_nr_running(worker->pool));
> + worker->sleeping = 0;
> }
>
> /**
> * wq_worker_sleeping - a worker is going to sleep
> * @task: task going to sleep
> - * @cpu: CPU in question, must be the current CPU number
> *
> * This function is called during schedule() when a busy worker is
> - * going to sleep. Worker on the same cpu can be woken up by
> - * returning pointer to its task.
> - *
> - * CONTEXT:
> - * spin_lock_irq(rq->lock)
> - *
> - * RETURNS:
> - * Worker task on @cpu to wake up, %NULL if none.
> + * going to sleep.
> */
> -struct task_struct *wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task,
> - unsigned int cpu)
> +void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task), *to_wakeup = NULL;
> + struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task);
> struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
> - atomic_t *nr_running = get_pool_nr_running(pool);
> + struct global_cwq *gcwq = pool->gcwq;
> + atomic_t *nr_running;
>
> if (worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING)
> - return NULL;
> + return;
>
> - /* this can only happen on the local cpu */
> - BUG_ON(cpu != raw_smp_processor_id());
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->sleeping))
> + return;
>
> + worker->sleeping = 1;
> + spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> + nr_running = get_pool_nr_running(pool);
> /*
> * The counterpart of the following dec_and_test, implied mb,
> * worklist not empty test sequence is in insert_work().
> * Please read comment there.
> - *
> - * NOT_RUNNING is clear. This means that we're bound to and
> - * running on the local cpu w/ rq lock held and preemption
> - * disabled, which in turn means that none else could be
> - * manipulating idle_list, so dereferencing idle_list without gcwq
> - * lock is safe.
> */
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(nr_running) && !list_empty(&pool->worklist))
> - to_wakeup = first_worker(pool);
> - return to_wakeup ? to_wakeup->task : NULL;
> + wake_up_process(first_worker(pool)->task);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> }
>
> /**
> Index: linux-stable-rt/kernel/workqueue_sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable-rt.orig/kernel/workqueue_sched.h
> +++ linux-stable-rt/kernel/workqueue_sched.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,5 @@
> * Scheduler hooks for concurrency managed workqueue. Only to be
> * included from sched.c and workqueue.c.
> */
> -void wq_worker_waking_up(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int cpu);
> -struct task_struct *wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task,
> - unsigned int cpu);
> +void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task);
> +void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task);
--
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