[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200406121008.62903-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:10:08 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix call walk_tg_tree_from() without hold rcu_lock
The walk_tg_tree_from() caller must hold rcu_lock, but the caller
do not call rcu_read_lock() in the unthrottle_cfs_rq(). The
unthrottle_cfs_rq() is used in 3 places. There are
distribute_cfs_runtime(), unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs() and
tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(). The former 2 already hold the rcu lock,
but the last one does not. So fix it with calling rcu_read_lock()
in the unthrottle_cfs_rq().
Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6f05843c76d7d..870853c47b63c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4782,7 +4782,9 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
/* update hierarchical throttle state */
+ rcu_read_lock();
walk_tg_tree_from(cfs_rq->tg, tg_nop, tg_unthrottle_up, (void *)rq);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
if (!cfs_rq->load.weight)
return;
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists