[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54522CE2.6090806@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:19:46 +0000
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/dl: Implement cancel_dl_timer() to use in switched_from_dl()
Hi Kirill,
On 27/10/14 14:40, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> Currently used hrtimer_try_to_cancel() is racy:
>
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> ... dl_task_timer raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ...
> switched_from_dl() ... ...
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ... ...
> switched_to_fair() ... ...
> ... ... ...
> ... ... ...
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... (asquired)
> ... ... ...
> ... ... ...
> do_exit() ... ...
> schedule() ... ...
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
> ... ... ...
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock) ... raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> ... ... (asquired)
> put_task_struct() ... ...
> free_task_struct() ... ...
> ... ... raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
> ... (asquired) ...
> ... ... ...
> ... (use after free) ...
>
>
> So, let's implement 100% guaranteed way to cancel the timer and let's
> be sure we are safe even in very unlikely situations.
>
> rq unlocking does not limit the area of switched_from_dl() use, because
> this has already been possible in pull_dl_task() below.
>
> Let's consider the safety of of this unlocking. New code in the patch
> is working when hrtimer_try_to_cancel() fails. This means the callback
> is running. In this case hrtimer_cancel() is just waiting till the
> callback is finished. Two
>
> 1)Since we are in switched_from_dl(), new class is not dl_sched_class and
> new prio is not less MAX_DL_PRIO. So, the callback returns early; it's
> right after !dl_task() check. After that hrtimer_cancel() returns back too.
>
> The above is:
>
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
> ... dl_task_timer()
> ... raw_spin_lock(rq->lock);
> switched_from_dl() ...
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ...
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock); ...
> hrtimer_cancel() ...
> ... raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock);
> ... return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> ... ...
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
>
> 2)But the below is also possible:
> dl_task_timer()
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock);
> ...
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock);
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
> switched_from_dl() ...
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() ...
> ... return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock); ...
> hrtimer_cancel(); ...
> raw_spin_lock(rq->lock); ...
>
> In this case hrtimer_cancel() returns immediately. Very unlikely case,
> just to mention.
>
>
> Nobody can manipulate the task, because check_class_changed() is
> always called with pi_lock locked. Nobody can force the task to
> participate in (concurrent) priority inheritance schemes (the same reason).
>
> All concurrent task operations require pi_lock, which is held by us.
> No deadlocks with dl_task_timer() are possible, because it returns
> right after !dl_task() check (it does nothing).
>
> If we receive a new dl_task during the time of unlocked rq, we just
> don't have to do pull_dl_task() in switched_from_dl() further.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
So, it passed simple tests. I guess it is ok :).
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Thanks,
- Juri
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 256e577..9435e05 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -555,11 +555,6 @@ void init_dl_task_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> {
> struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->dl_timer;
>
> - if (hrtimer_active(timer)) {
> - hrtimer_try_to_cancel(timer);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> hrtimer_init(timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> timer->function = dl_task_timer;
> }
> @@ -1567,10 +1562,35 @@ void init_sched_dl_class(void)
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> +/*
> + * Ensure p's dl_timer is cancelled. May drop rq->lock for a while.
> + */
> +static void cancel_dl_timer(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct hrtimer *dl_timer = &p->dl.dl_timer;
> +
> + /* Nobody will change task's class if pi_lock is held */
> + lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
> +
> + if (hrtimer_active(dl_timer)) {
> + int ret = hrtimer_try_to_cancel(dl_timer);
> +
> + if (unlikely(ret == -1)) {
> + /*
> + * Note, p may migrate OR new deadline tasks
> + * may appear in rq when we are unlocking it.
> + * A caller of us must be fine with that.
> + */
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> + hrtimer_cancel(dl_timer);
> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.dl_timer) && !dl_policy(p->policy))
> - hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&p->dl.dl_timer);
> + cancel_dl_timer(rq, p);
>
> __dl_clear_params(p);
>
>
>
>
>
--
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