linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Use RCU-sched in core-scheduling balancing logic

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

Message-ID: <20200324184946.GD257597@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:49:46 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        vpillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Use RCU-sched in core-scheduling balancing logic

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01:27AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/3/23 23:21, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:58:18PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >> On 2020/3/14 8:30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:29:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >>>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent deadlock in
> >>>> sched_core_balance(). Fix this by using the RCU-sched flavor instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> This fixes the following spinlock recursion observed when testing the
> >>>> core scheduling patches on PREEMPT=y kernel on ChromeOS:
> >>>>
> >>>> [   14.998590] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [kworker/0:10:965]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The original could indeed deadlock, and this would avoid that deadlock.
> >>> (The commit to solve this deadlock is sadly not yet in mainline.)
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> >>
> >> I saw this in dmesg with this patch, is it expected?
> >>
> >> [  117.000905] =============================
> >> [  117.000907] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >> [  117.000911] 5.5.7+ #160 Not tainted
> >> [  117.000913] -----------------------------
> >> [  117.000916] kernel/sched/core.c:4747 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> >> [  117.000918] 
> >>                other info that might help us debug this:
> > 
> > Sigh, this is because for_each_domain() expects rcu_read_lock(). From an RCU
> > PoV, the code is correct (warning doesn't cause any issue).
> > 
> > To silence warning, we could replace the rcu_read_lock_sched() in my patch with:
> > preempt_disable();
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > 
> > and replace the unlock with:
> > 
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > preempt_enable();
> > 
> > That should both take care of both the warning and the scheduler-related
> > deadlock. Thoughts?
> > 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a01df3e..7ff694e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4743,7 +4743,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>  	int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> -	raw_spin_unlock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
>  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>  		if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
>  			break;
> @@ -4754,7 +4753,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>  		if (steal_cookie_task(cpu, sd))
>  			break;
>  	}
> -	raw_spin_lock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));

try_steal_cookie() does a double_rq_lock(). Would this change not deadlock
with that?

thanks,

 - Joel