[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUDcdlrvCEPpQWUe@lothringen>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 11:52:38 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com, yu.c.chen@...el.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
quic_neeraju@...cinc.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
qiang.zhang1211@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't call any kfree*() API in
do_set_cpus_allowed()
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:53:08AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 08:14:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in
> > do_set_cpus_allowed()") added a kfree() call to free any user
> > provided affinity mask, if present. It was changed later to use
> > kfree_rcu() in commit 9a5418bc48ba ("sched/core: Use kfree_rcu()
> > in do_set_cpus_allowed()") to avoid a circular locking dependency
> > problem.
> >
> > It turns out that even kfree_rcu() isn't safe for avoiding
> > circular locking problem. As reported by kernel test robot,
> > the following circular locking dependency still exists:
> >
> > &rdp->nocb_lock --> rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock
> >
> > So no kfree*() API can be used in do_set_cpus_allowed(). To prevent
> > memory leakage, the unused user provided affinity mask is now saved in a
> > lockless list to be reused later by subsequent sched_setaffinity() calls.
> >
> > Without kfree_rcu(), the internal cpumask_rcuhead union can be removed
> > too as a lockless list entry only holds a single pointer.
> >
> > Fixes: 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in do_set_cpus_allowed()")
>
> Bah, or we fix RCU... Paul, how insane is the below?
Makes sense. We can't remove &rdp->nocb_lock --> rcu_node_0 but we can (and
should) indeed remove rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock
Just a detail below:
> @@ -2284,10 +2289,13 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp))
> }
> for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rnp->qsmask) {
> rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> - if (f(rdp)) {
> + ret = f(rdp);
> + if (ret > 0) {
> mask |= rdp->grpmask;
> rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> }
> + if (ret < 0)
> + rsmask |= 1UL << (cpu - rnp->grplo);
I guess this can be simplified with rsmask |= rdp->grpmask;
Thanks.
> }
> if (mask != 0) {
> /* Idle/offline CPUs, report (releases rnp->lock). */
> @@ -2296,6 +2304,9 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp))
> /* Nothing to do here, so just drop the lock. */
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> }
> +
> + for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rsmask)
> + resched_cpu(cpu);
> }
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists