[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200724105006.g42lu4a4g6pvusl4@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:50:07 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] sched/uclamp: Fix a deadlock when enabling uclamp
static key
On 07/24/20 12:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 07/24/20 11:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:03:47PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > >
> > > I've trimmed the Changelog to read like:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Should we mention the ordering issue too? Or maybe I misinterpreted the
> > 'Possible unsafe locking scenario' part?
>
> The lock inversion was, imo, secondary. It only existed because of the
> impossible lock ordering -- taking a blocking lock inside an atomic
> lock. Fixing the first, avoids the second etc.. So I left it out.
>
> > This should work, but you'll need to sprinkle ifdef around the key. Or move it
> > to uclamp_validate()
>
> Indeed, the patch now reads like:
Maybe s/deadlock/splat/ in the subject now? I clearly focused on the secondary
thing..
Sorry you had to modify the patch that much yourself.
Thanks!
--
Qais Yousef
>
> ---
> Subject: sched/uclamp: Fix a deadlock when enabling uclamp static key
> From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:47 +0100
>
> From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
>
> The following splat was caught when setting uclamp value of a task:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at ./include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h:49
>
> cpus_read_lock+0x68/0x130
> static_key_enable+0x1c/0x38
> __sched_setscheduler+0x900/0xad8
>
> Fix by ensuring we enable the key outside of the critical section in
> __sched_setscheduler()
>
> Fixes: 46609ce22703 ("sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key")
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200716110347.19553-4-qais.yousef@arm.com
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1252,6 +1252,15 @@ static int uclamp_validate(struct task_s
> if (upper_bound > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /*
> + * We have valid uclamp attributes; make sure uclamp is enabled.
> + *
> + * We need to do that here, because enabling static branches is a
> + * blocking operation which obviously cannot be done while holding
> + * scheduler locks.
> + */
> + static_branch_enable(&sched_uclamp_used);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1282,8 +1291,6 @@ static void __setscheduler_uclamp(struct
> if (likely(!(attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)))
> return;
>
> - static_branch_enable(&sched_uclamp_used);
> -
> if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN) {
> uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN],
> attr->sched_util_min, true);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists