[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140521072945.GD30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:29:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race between dl_task_timer() and
sched_setaffinity()
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:33:42PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race in dl_task_timer()
>
> Throttled task is still on rq, and it may be moved to other cpu
> if user is playing with sched_setaffinity(). Therefore, unlocked
> task_rq() access makes the race.
>
> Juri Lelli reports he got this race when dl_bandwidth_enabled()
> was not set.
>
> Other thing, pointed by Peter Zijlstra:
>
> "Now I suppose the problem can still actually happen when
> you change the root domain and trigger a effective affinity
> change that way".
>
> To fix that we do the same as made in __task_rq_lock(). We do not
> use __task_rq_lock() itself, because it has a useful lockdep check,
> which is not correct in case of dl_task_timer(). We do not need
> pi_lock locked here. This case is an exception (PeterZ):
>
> "The only reason we don't strictly need ->pi_lock now is because
> we're guaranteed to have p->state == TASK_RUNNING here and are
> thus free of ttwu races".
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v3.14
> ---
thanks Kirill!
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists