[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aNOMK1gk9if3UTgQ@gpd4>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:14:03 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched_ext: Use rhashtable_lookup() instead of
rhashtable_lookup_fast()
Hi Tejun
On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 03:32:40PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The find_user_dsq() function is called from contexts that are already
> under RCU read lock protection. Switch from rhashtable_lookup_fast() to
> rhashtable_lookup() to avoid redundant RCU locking.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
It looks like the ttwu_queue() path isn't RCU read lock protected.
With this applied:
[ 6.647598] =============================
[ 6.647603] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 6.647605] 6.17.0-rc7-virtme #1 Not tainted
[ 6.647608] -----------------------------
[ 6.647608] ./include/linux/rhashtable.h:602 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
[ 6.647610]
[ 6.647610] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 6.647610]
[ 6.647612]
[ 6.647612] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
[ 6.647613] 1 lock held by swapper/10/0:
[ 6.647614] #0: ffff8b14bbb3cc98 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x20/0x90
[ 6.647630]
[ 6.647630] stack backtrace:
[ 6.647633] CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/10 Not tainted 6.17.0-rc7-virtme #1 PREEMPT(full)
[ 6.647643] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
[ 6.647646] Sched_ext: beerland_1.0.2_g27d63fc3_x86_64_unknown_linux_gnu (enabled+all)
[ 6.647648] Call Trace:
[ 6.647652] <IRQ>
[ 6.647655] dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0xe0
[ 6.647665] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x14a/0x1b0
[ 6.647672] __rhashtable_lookup.constprop.0+0x1d5/0x250
[ 6.647680] find_dsq_for_dispatch+0xbc/0x190
[ 6.647684] do_enqueue_task+0x25b/0x550
[ 6.647689] enqueue_task_scx+0x21d/0x360
[ 6.647692] ? trace_lock_acquire+0x22/0xb0
[ 6.647695] enqueue_task+0x2e/0xd0
[ 6.647698] ttwu_do_activate+0xa2/0x290
[ 6.647703] sched_ttwu_pending+0xfd/0x250
[ 6.647706] __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x1cd/0x610
[ 6.647714] __sysvec_call_function_single+0x34/0x150
[ 6.647720] sysvec_call_function_single+0x6e/0x80
[ 6.647726] </IRQ>
[ 6.647726] <TASK>
[ 6.647727] asm_sysvec_call_function_single+0x1a/0x20
Should we revert this?
Thanks,
-Andrea
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index f5873f8ed669..df433f6fab4b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static struct scx_dispatch_q *find_global_dsq(struct task_struct *p)
>
> static struct scx_dispatch_q *find_user_dsq(struct scx_sched *sch, u64 dsq_id)
> {
> - return rhashtable_lookup_fast(&sch->dsq_hash, &dsq_id, dsq_hash_params);
> + return rhashtable_lookup(&sch->dsq_hash, &dsq_id, dsq_hash_params);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.51.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists