linux-kernel - [PATCH] sched/rt: Document why has_pushable_tasks() isn't called with a runqueue lock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170228164856.3d2e81bd@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:48:56 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/rt: Document why has_pushable_tasks() isn't called
 with a runqueue lock


From: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

While reviewing the RT scheduling IPI logic, I was thinking that it was
a bug that has_pushable_tasks(rq) was not called under the runqueue
lock. But then I realized that there isn't a case where a race would
cause a problem, as to update has_pushable_tasks() would trigger a
push_rt_task() call from the CPU doing the update.

This subtle logic deserves a comment.

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 4101f9d..f39449b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1976,6 +1976,16 @@ static void try_to_push_tasks(void *arg)
 	src_rq = rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq);
 
 again:
+	/*
+	 * Normally, has_pushable_tasks() would be performed within the
+	 * runqueue lock being held. But if it was not set when entering
+	 * this hard interrupt handler function, then to have it set would
+	 * require a wake up. A wake up of an RT task will either cause a
+	 * schedule if the woken task is higher priority than the running
+	 * task, or it would try to do a push from the CPU doing the wake
+	 * up. Grabbing the runqueue lock in such a case would more likely
+	 * just cause unnecessary contention.
+	 */
 	if (has_pushable_tasks(rq)) {
 		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
 		push_rt_task(rq);