Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: schedule_tail() should disable preemption

From: Kirill Tkhai
Date: Wed Oct 08 2014 - 17:37:37 EST


Ð ÐÑ, 08/10/2014 Ð 21:36 +0200, Oleg Nesterov ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On 10/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Another problem is that finish_task_switch() itself runs with preempt
> > enabled after finish_lock_switch(). If nothing else this means that
> > ->sched_in() notifier can't trust its "cpu" arg.
>
> OOPS, this obviously can't happen, ->preempt_notifiers must be empty.
> Remove this part from the changelog, please see v2.
>
> I am not sure about finish_arch_post_lock_switch() ... but probably
> it should be fine without preempt_disable.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: schedule_tail() should disable preemption
>
> finish_task_switch() enables preemption, so post_schedule(rq) can be
> called on the wrong (and even dead) CPU. Afaics, nothing really bad
> can happen, but in this case we can wrongly clear rq->post_schedule
> on that CPU. And this simply looks wrong in any case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 703c7e6..3f267e8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2277,15 +2277,14 @@ static inline void post_schedule(struct rq *rq)
> asmlinkage __visible void schedule_tail(struct task_struct *prev)
> __releases(rq->lock)
> {
> - struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> + struct rq *rq;
>
> + /* finish_task_switch() drops rq->lock and enables preemtion */
> + preempt_disable();

Maybe, the code would look simpler if we change
init_task_preempt_count() and create new tasks
with preempt_count() == 2, so this preempt_disable()
won't be necessary. But it's more or less subjectively.

Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> + rq = this_rq();
> finish_task_switch(rq, prev);
> -
> - /*
> - * FIXME: do we need to worry about rq being invalidated by the
> - * task_switch?
> - */
> post_schedule(rq);
> + preempt_enable();
>
> if (current->set_child_tid)
> put_user(task_pid_vnr(current), current->set_child_tid);




--
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/