linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 5/7] sched: Add an initial sketch of the find_proxy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250417111841.GL38216@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:18:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@....com>,
	Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 5/7] sched: Add an initial sketch of the
 find_proxy_task() function

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:02:39PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> +static inline struct task_struct *proxy_resched_idle(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	put_prev_set_next_task(rq, rq->donor, rq->idle);
> +	rq_set_donor(rq, rq->idle);
> +	set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> +	return rq->idle;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __proxy_deactivate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor)
> +{
> +	unsigned long state = READ_ONCE(donor->__state);
> +
> +	/* Don't deactivate if the state has been changed to TASK_RUNNING */
> +	if (state == TASK_RUNNING)
> +		return false;
> +	/*
> +	 * Because we got donor from pick_next_task, it is *crucial*

pick_next_task()

> +	 * that we call proxy_resched_idle before we deactivate it.

proxy_resched_idle()

> +	 * As once we deactivate donor, donor->on_rq is set to zero,
> +	 * which allows ttwu to immediately try to wake the task on

ttwu()

> +	 * another rq. So we cannot use *any* references to donor
> +	 * after that point. So things like cfs_rq->curr or rq->donor
> +	 * need to be changed from next *before* we deactivate.
> +	 */
> +	proxy_resched_idle(rq);
> +	return try_to_block_task(rq, donor, state, true);
> +}
> +
> +static struct task_struct *proxy_deactivate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor)
> +{
> +	if (!__proxy_deactivate(rq, donor)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * XXX: For now, if deactivation failed, set donor
> +		 * as unblocked, as we aren't doing proxy-migrations
> +		 * yet (more logic will be needed then).
> +		 */
> +		donor->blocked_on = NULL;
> +	}
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Initial simple sketch that just deactivates the blocked task
> + * chosen by pick_next_task() so we can then pick something that
> + * isn't blocked.
> + */
> +static struct task_struct *
> +find_proxy_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *donor, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *p = donor;
> +	struct mutex *mutex;
> +
> +	mutex = p->blocked_on;
> +	/* Something changed in the chain, so pick again */
> +	if (!mutex)
> +		return NULL;
> +	/*
> +	 * By taking mutex->wait_lock we hold off concurrent mutex_unlock()
> +	 * and ensure @owner sticks around.
> +	 */
> +	guard(raw_spinlock)(&mutex->wait_lock);
> +
> +	/* Check again that p is blocked with blocked_lock held */
> +	if (!task_is_blocked(p) || mutex != __get_task_blocked_on(p)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Something changed in the blocked_on chain and
> +		 * we don't know if only at this level. So, let's
> +		 * just bail out completely and let __schedule

__schedule()

> +		 * figure things out (pick_again loop).
> +		 */
> +		return NULL; /* do pick_next_task again */

pick_next_task()

> +	}
> +	return proxy_deactivate(rq, donor);

I was expecting a for() loop here, this only follows blocked_on once,
right?

> +}