Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: proxy-exec: Close race causing workqueue work being delayed

From: K Prateek Nayak

Date: Fri May 01 2026 - 12:07:51 EST


Hello Peter,

On 5/1/2026 6:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Sorry for being late, I was unwell for a few days :/

Hope you are feeling better now.

>> -#define PROXY_WAKING ((struct mutex *)(-1L))
>> +#define PROXY_BLOCKED_LATCH (1UL)
>> +#define PROXY_BLOCKED_ON_MASK(x) ((struct mutex *)((unsigned long)(x) & ~PROXY_BLOCKED_LATCH))
>> +#define PROXY_WAKING ((struct mutex *)(-1L)) /* PROXY_WAKING has LATCH bit set */
>
> Urgh, please no.
>
> You're making it needlessly complicated. There really are two separate
> states, set by two different chains of logic:
>
> - the blocked_on link, set by the blocking primitive (mutex)
>
> - the is_blocked state, set by the scheduler when logically blocking
> the task.
>
> by munging them together like that, you also inherit that blocked_lock
> into contexts that really don't need it, and you're also sprinkling
> more of that sched_proxy_exec() stuff around.
>
> If we keep them nicely separated, none of that happens, and
> additionally, we might be able to get rid of the p->se.sched_delayed
> (ab)use in the core code (eventually).

So there are cases where we want to traverse the find_proxy_task()
bits even after the task gets a wakeup to do return migration which
will break if we start clearing p->is_blocked at ttwu_do_wakeup().

More on that below ...

>
> Does something like the below really not work?
>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 368c7b4d7cb5..0bd5da8360f3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -846,7 +846,11 @@ struct task_struct {
> struct alloc_tag *alloc_tag;
> #endif
>
> - int on_cpu;
> + u8 on_cpu;
> + u8 on_rq;
> + u8 is_blocked;
> + u8 __pad;
> +
> struct __call_single_node wake_entry;
> unsigned int wakee_flips;
> unsigned long wakee_flip_decay_ts;
> @@ -861,7 +865,6 @@ struct task_struct {
> */
> int recent_used_cpu;
> int wake_cpu;
> - int on_rq;
>
> int prio;
> int static_prio;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b8871449d3c6..f679d65d98a3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -615,6 +615,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__trace_set_current_state);
> * [ The astute reader will observe that it is possible for two tasks on one
> * CPU to have ->on_cpu = 1 at the same time. ]
> *
> + * p->is_blocked <- { 0, 1 }:
> + *
> + * is set by try_to_block_task() and cleared by ttwu_do_wakeup() and tracks
> + * if the task is blocked. Tradidionally this would mirror p->on_rq, however
> + * due things like DELAY_DEQUEUE and PROXY_EXEC, this can diverge.
> + *
> * task_cpu(p): is changed by set_task_cpu(), the rules are:
> *
> * - Don't call set_task_cpu() on a blocked task:
> @@ -3685,6 +3691,7 @@ ttwu_stat(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
> */
> static inline void ttwu_do_wakeup(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> + p->is_blocked = 0;

I don't think it is this simple at the moment because the proxy bits in
__schedule() still have to handle PROXY_WAKING and once we clear it here
task will no longer go through proxy_needs_return() path.

Clearing of ->is_blocked has to be done at the same point where
->blocked_on is cleared although they are set separately.

> WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
> trace_sched_wakeup(p);
> }
> @@ -4173,6 +4180,7 @@ int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> * it disabling IRQs (this allows not taking ->pi_lock).
> */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(p->se.sched_delayed);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(p->is_blocked);
> if (!ttwu_state_match(p, state, &success))
> goto out;
>
> @@ -4463,6 +4471,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(u64 clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
>
> /* A delayed task cannot be in clone(). */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(p->se.sched_delayed);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(p->is_blocked);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> p->se.cfs_rq = NULL;
> @@ -6593,6 +6602,8 @@ static bool try_to_block_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> return false;
> }

If we change the set_task_blocked_on_waking() above for pending
signal to clear_task_blocked_on(), this should be fine. Since
prev is on_cpu, it doesn't need any return migration and going via
PROXY_WAKING path isn't too helpful IMO.

>
> + p->is_blocked = 1;
> +
> /*
> * We check should_block after signal_pending because we
> * will want to wake the task in that case. But if
> @@ -7108,7 +7119,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
> struct task_struct *prev_donor = rq->donor;
>
> rq_set_donor(rq, next);
> - if (unlikely(next->blocked_on)) {
> + if (unlikely(next->is_blocked && next->blocked_on)) {

There is a race with ttwu_runnable() that happens like:

mutex_lock_common(mutex)
set_task_blocked_on(p, mutex)
set_current_state(state) mutex_unloc(mutex)
schedule_preempt_disabled() set_task_blocked_on_waking(p)
... try_to_wake_up(p) /* State matches; p->on_rq */
ttwu_runnable(p)
ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
if (!preempt && prev_state) {
/*
* Never happens since
* ->state == TASK_RUNNING.
* -> is/_blocked is never set.
*/
}

next = /* Gets prev again */
/* proxy bits are skipped since ->is_blocked is 0 */

/*
* Exits out of schedule_preempt_disabled()
* in mutex_lock_common().
*/
__set_task_blocked_on(current, lock);
!!! SPLAT: p->blocked_on /* PROXY_WAKING */ && p->blocked != lock !!!


So that screams since we fail to clear the ->blocked_on state when
ttwu_runnable() wins over schedule().

John didn't like touching the ->blocked_on state for
(!prev_state && prev->blocked_on) so we resorted to using the lower
bits of ->blocked_on.

The p->se.sched_proxy like fix is the closest we'll get to if we go
down the separate state in task_struct path and for most part it
will mirror blocked_on which is why setting the bottom bits like
MUTEX_FLAGS made some sense when we looked at it.

> next = find_proxy_task(rq, next, &rf);
> if (!next) {
> zap_balance_callbacks(rq);

--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek