[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241231055020.6521-1-dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:50:20 +0800
From: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched: Fix race between yield_to() and try_to_wake_up()
We met a SCHED_WARN in set_next_buddy():
__warn_printk
set_next_buddy
yield_to_task_fair
yield_to
kvm_vcpu_yield_to [kvm]
...
After a short dig, we found the rq_lock held by yield_to() may not
be exactly the rq that the target task belongs to. There is a race
window against try_to_wake_up().
CPU0 target_task
blocking on CPU1
lock rq0 & rq1
double check task_rq == p_rq, ok
woken to CPU2 (lock task_pi & rq2)
task_rq = rq2
yield_to_task_fair (w/o lock rq2)
In this race window, yield_to() is operating the task w/o the currect
lock. Fix this by taking task pi_lock first.
Fixes: d95f41220065 ("sched: Add yield_to(task, preempt) functionality")
Signed-off-by: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
---
kernel/sched/syscalls.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
index ff0e5ab4e37c..943406c4ee86 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
@@ -1433,7 +1433,7 @@ int __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
struct rq *rq, *p_rq;
int yielded = 0;
- scoped_guard (irqsave) {
+ scoped_guard (raw_spinlock_irqsave, &p->pi_lock) {
rq = this_rq();
again:
--
2.39.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists