linux-kernel - [tip:sched/core] sched/deadline: Fix the intention to re-evalute tick dependency for offline CPU

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2016 04:56:08 -0700
From:   tip-bot for Wanpeng Li <tipbot@...or.com>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        wanpeng.li@...mail.com, luca.abeni@...tn.it, hpa@...or.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, juri.lelli@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip:sched/core] sched/deadline: Fix the intention to re-evalute
 tick dependency for offline CPU

Commit-ID:  61c7aca695b6fabe85d0fc424fe8ae2f66f267dd
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/61c7aca695b6fabe85d0fc424fe8ae2f66f267dd
Author:     Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:27:44 +0800
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 13:29:45 +0200

sched/deadline: Fix the intention to re-evalute tick dependency for offline CPU

The dl task will be replenished after dl task timer fire and start a
new period. It will be enqueued and to re-evaluate its dependency on
the tick in order to restart it. However, if the CPU is hot-unplugged,
irq_work_queue will splash since the target CPU is offline.

As a result we get:

    WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/irq_work.c:69 irq_work_queue_on+0xad/0xe0
    Call Trace:
     dump_stack+0x99/0xd0
     __warn+0xd1/0xf0
     warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20
     irq_work_queue_on+0xad/0xe0
     tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu+0x44/0x50
     tick_nohz_dep_set_cpu+0x74/0xb0
     enqueue_task_dl+0x226/0x480
     activate_task+0x5c/0xa0
     dl_task_timer+0x19b/0x2c0
     ? push_dl_task.part.31+0x190/0x190

This can be triggered by hot-unplugging the full dynticks CPU which dl
task is running on.

We enqueue the dl task on the offline CPU, because we need to do
replenish for start_dl_timer(). So, as Juri pointed out, we would
need to do is calling replenish_dl_entity() directly, instead of
enqueue_task_dl(). pi_se shouldn't be a problem as the task shouldn't
be boosted if it was throttled.

This patch fixes it by avoiding the whole enqueue+dequeue+enqueue story, by
first migrating (set_task_cpu()) and then doing 1 enqueue.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472639264-3932-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/deadline.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 18fb0b8..0c75bc6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -243,10 +243,8 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_later_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq);
 static struct rq *dl_task_offline_migration(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 {
 	struct rq *later_rq = NULL;
-	bool fallback = false;
 
 	later_rq = find_lock_later_rq(p, rq);
-
 	if (!later_rq) {
 		int cpu;
 
@@ -254,7 +252,6 @@ static struct rq *dl_task_offline_migration(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p
 		 * If we cannot preempt any rq, fall back to pick any
 		 * online cpu.
 		 */
-		fallback = true;
 		cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask, tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
 		if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
 			/*
@@ -274,16 +271,7 @@ static struct rq *dl_task_offline_migration(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p
 		double_lock_balance(rq, later_rq);
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * By now the task is replenished and enqueued; migrate it.
-	 */
-	deactivate_task(rq, p, 0);
 	set_task_cpu(p, later_rq->cpu);
-	activate_task(later_rq, p, 0);
-
-	if (!fallback)
-		resched_curr(later_rq);
-
 	double_unlock_balance(later_rq, rq);
 
 	return later_rq;
@@ -641,29 +629,31 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
-	enqueue_task_dl(rq, p, ENQUEUE_REPLENISH);
-	if (dl_task(rq->curr))
-		check_preempt_curr_dl(rq, p, 0);
-	else
-		resched_curr(rq);
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	/*
-	 * Perform balancing operations here; after the replenishments.  We
-	 * cannot drop rq->lock before this, otherwise the assertion in
-	 * start_dl_timer() about not missing updates is not true.
-	 *
-	 * If we find that the rq the task was on is no longer available, we
-	 * need to select a new rq.
-	 *
-	 * XXX figure out if select_task_rq_dl() deals with offline cpus.
-	 */
 	if (unlikely(!rq->online)) {
+		/*
+		 * If the runqueue is no longer available, migrate the
+		 * task elsewhere. This necessarily changes rq.
+		 */
 		lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock, rf.cookie);
 		rq = dl_task_offline_migration(rq, p);
 		rf.cookie = lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Now that the task has been migrated to the new RQ and we
+		 * have that locked, proceed as normal and enqueue the task
+		 * there.
+		 */
 	}
+#endif
 
+	enqueue_task_dl(rq, p, ENQUEUE_REPLENISH);
+	if (dl_task(rq->curr))
+		check_preempt_curr_dl(rq, p, 0);
+	else
+		resched_curr(rq);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	/*
 	 * Queueing this task back might have overloaded rq, check if we need
 	 * to kick someone away.