Revision 6e2df0581f569038719cf2bc2b3baa3fcc83cab4 authored by Peter Zijlstra on 08 November 2019, 10:11:52 UTC, committed by Peter Zijlstra on 08 November 2019, 21:34:14 UTC
Commit 67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
inadvertly introduced a race because it changed a previously
unexplored dependency between dropping the rq->lock and
sched_class::put_prev_task().
The comments about dropping rq->lock, in for example
newidle_balance(), only mentions the task being current and ->on_cpu
being set. But when we look at the 'change' pattern (in for example
sched_setnuma()):
queued = task_on_rq_queued(p); /* p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED */
running = task_current(rq, p); /* rq->curr == p */
if (queued)
dequeue_task(...);
if (running)
put_prev_task(...);
/* change task properties */
if (queued)
enqueue_task(...);
if (running)
set_next_task(...);
It becomes obvious that if we do this after put_prev_task() has
already been called on @p, things go sideways. This is exactly what
the commit in question allows to happen when it does:
prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf);
if (!rq->nr_running)
newidle_balance(rq, rf);
The newidle_balance() call will drop rq->lock after we've called
put_prev_task() and that allows the above 'change' pattern to
interleave and mess up the state.
Furthermore, it turns out we lost the RT-pull when we put the last DL
task.
Fix both problems by extracting the balancing from put_prev_task() and
doing a multi-class balance() pass before put_prev_task().
Fixes: 67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
Reported-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
1 parent e3b8b6a
percpu-rw-semaphore.txt
====================
Percpu rw semaphores
====================
Percpu rw semaphores is a new read-write semaphore design that is
optimized for locking for reading.
The problem with traditional read-write semaphores is that when multiple
cores take the lock for reading, the cache line containing the semaphore
is bouncing between L1 caches of the cores, causing performance
degradation.
Locking for reading is very fast, it uses RCU and it avoids any atomic
instruction in the lock and unlock path. On the other hand, locking for
writing is very expensive, it calls synchronize_rcu() that can take
hundreds of milliseconds.
The lock is declared with "struct percpu_rw_semaphore" type.
The lock is initialized percpu_init_rwsem, it returns 0 on success and
-ENOMEM on allocation failure.
The lock must be freed with percpu_free_rwsem to avoid memory leak.
The lock is locked for read with percpu_down_read, percpu_up_read and
for write with percpu_down_write, percpu_up_write.
The idea of using RCU for optimized rw-lock was introduced by
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>.
The code was written by Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Computing file changes ...
