Re: [BUG]: Crash with CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED=y

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:48:05PM -0800, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> With CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED=y, following commands on 2.6.24-rc1 crash
> the system.

Thanks for reporting the problem. It was caused because of the fact that
current task isn't kept in its runqueue in case of sched_fair class
tasks.

With the patch below, I could run ns_exec w/o any crash. Can you pls
verify it works for you as well?

Ingo,
	Once Suka verifies that the patch fixes his crash, I would request you 
to include the same in your tree and route it to Linus.

--

current task is not present in its runqueue in case of sched_fair class
tasks. Take care of this fact in rt_mutex_setprio(),
sched_setscheduler() and sched_move_task() routines.

Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


---
 kernel/sched.c |   45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Index: current/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- current.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ current/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3986,11 +3986,13 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
 	oldprio = p->prio;
 	on_rq = p->se.on_rq;
 	running = task_running(rq, p);
-	if (on_rq) {
+	if (on_rq)
 		dequeue_task(rq, p, 0);
-		if (running)
-			p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
-	}
+	/* current task is not kept in its runqueue in case of sched_fair class.
+	 * Hence we need the 'on_rq?' and 'running?' tests to be separate.
+	 */
+	if (running)
+		p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
 
 	if (rt_prio(prio))
 		p->sched_class = &rt_sched_class;
@@ -3999,9 +4001,9 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
 
 	p->prio = prio;
 
+	if (running)
+		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
 	if (on_rq) {
-		if (running)
-			p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
 		enqueue_task(rq, p, 0);
 		inc_load(rq, p);
 		/*
@@ -4298,18 +4300,20 @@ recheck:
 	update_rq_clock(rq);
 	on_rq = p->se.on_rq;
 	running = task_running(rq, p);
-	if (on_rq) {
+	if (on_rq)
 		deactivate_task(rq, p, 0);
-		if (running)
-			p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
-	}
+	/* current task is not kept in its runqueue in case of sched_fair class.
+	 * Hence we need the 'on_rq?' and 'running?' tests to be separate.
+	 */
+	if (running)
+		p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
 
 	oldprio = p->prio;
 	__setscheduler(rq, p, policy, param->sched_priority);
 
+	if (running)
+		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
 	if (on_rq) {
-		if (running)
-			p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
 		activate_task(rq, p, 0);
 		/*
 		 * Reschedule if we are currently running on this runqueue and
@@ -7036,19 +7040,20 @@ void sched_move_task(struct task_struct 
 	running = task_running(rq, tsk);
 	on_rq = tsk->se.on_rq;
 
-	if (on_rq) {
+	if (on_rq)
 		dequeue_task(rq, tsk, 0);
-		if (unlikely(running))
-			tsk->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, tsk);
-	}
+	/* current task is not kept in its runqueue in case of sched_fair class.
+	 * Hence we need the 'on_rq?' and 'running?' tests to be separate.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(running))
+		tsk->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, tsk);
 
 	set_task_cfs_rq(tsk);
 
-	if (on_rq) {
-		if (unlikely(running))
-			tsk->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
+	if (unlikely(running))
+		tsk->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
+	if (on_rq)
 		enqueue_task(rq, tsk, 0);
-	}
 
 done:
 	task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);


-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/