Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:17:07 +0200 | From | Juri Lelli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix switched_from_dl |
| |
On 01/08/18 23:19, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:29:48 +0200 > Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Mark noticed that syzkaller is able to reliably trigger the following > > > > dl_rq->running_bw > dl_rq->this_bw > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 153 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:124 switched_from_dl+0x454/0x608 > > Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ... > > > > CPU: 1 PID: 153 Comm: syz-executor253 Not tainted 4.18.0-rc3+ #29 > > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > > Call trace: > > dump_backtrace+0x0/0x458 > > show_stack+0x20/0x30 > > dump_stack+0x180/0x250 > > panic+0x2dc/0x4ec > > __warn_printk+0x0/0x150 > > report_bug+0x228/0x2d8 > > bug_handler+0xa0/0x1a0 > > brk_handler+0x2f0/0x568 > > do_debug_exception+0x1bc/0x5d0 > > el1_dbg+0x18/0x78 > > switched_from_dl+0x454/0x608 > > __sched_setscheduler+0x8cc/0x2018 > > sys_sched_setattr+0x340/0x758 > > el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34 > > > > syzkaller reproducer runs a bunch of threads that constantly switch > > between DEADLINE and NORMAL classes while interacting through futexes. > > > > The splat above is caused by the fact that if a DEADLINE task is setattr > > back to NORMAL while in non_contending state (blocked on a futex - > > inactive timer armed), its contribution to running_bw is not removed > > before sub_rq_bw() gets called (!task_on_rq_queued() branch) and the > > latter sees running_bw > this_bw. > > > > Fix it by removing a task contribution from running_bw if the task is > > not queued and in non_contending state while switched to a different > > class. > > > > Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> > > --- > > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > index fbfc3f1d368a..10c7b51c0d1f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > @@ -2290,8 +2290,17 @@ static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) > > if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && p->dl.dl_runtime) > > task_non_contending(p); > > > > - if (!task_on_rq_queued(p)) > > + if (!task_on_rq_queued(p)) { > > + /* > > + * Inactive timer is armed. However, p is leaving DEADLINE and > > + * might migrate away from this rq while continuing to run on > > + * some other class. We need to remove its contribution from > > + * this rq running_bw now, or sub_rq_bw (below) will complain. > > + */ > > + if (p->dl.dl_non_contending) > > + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl); > > sub_rq_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl); > > + } > > > > /* > > * We cannot use inactive_task_timer() to invoke sub_running_bw() > > Looking at this code: > > if (!task_on_rq_queued(p)) { > /* > * Inactive timer is armed. However, p is leaving DEADLINE and > * might migrate away from this rq while continuing to run on > * some other class. We need to remove its contribution from > * this rq running_bw now, or sub_rq_bw (below) will complain. > */ > if (p->dl.dl_non_contending) > sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl); > sub_rq_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl); > } > > /* > * We cannot use inactive_task_timer() to invoke sub_running_bw() > * at the 0-lag time, because the task could have been migrated > * while SCHED_OTHER in the meanwhile. > */ > if (p->dl.dl_non_contending) > p->dl.dl_non_contending = 0; > > Question. Is the "dl_non_contending" only able to be set > if !task_on_rq_queued(p) is true? In that case, we could just clear it > in the first if block.
Code right before the if block does
if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && p->dl.dl_runtime) task_non_contending(p);
So we can end up with dl_non_contending being set even if task_on_rq_ queued(p) is true.
> If it's not true, I would think the subtraction > is needed regardless.
And if we do sub_running_bw unconditionally we might end up subtracting twice if inactive timer fired (resetting dl_non_contending) before we end up here, no?
Thanks,
- Juri
| |