Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/dl: Implement cancel_dl_timer() to use in switched_from_dl()

[Juri Lelli]

On 21/10/14 11:48, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Ð ÐÑ, 21/10/2014 Ð 11:30 +0100, Juri Lelli ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>> Hi Kirill,
>>
>> sorry for the late reply, but I was busy doing other stuff and then
>> travelling.
>>
>> On 02/10/14 11:05, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> Ð ÐÑ, 02/10/2014 Ð 11:34 +0200, Peter Zijlstra ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 01:04:22AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>> From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> hrtimer_try_to_cancel() may bring a suprise, its call may fail.
>>>>
>>>> Well, not really a surprise that, its a _try_ operation after all.
>>>>
>>>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ...                            dl_task_timer                 raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ...                               raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)   ...
>>>>>    switched_from_dl()             ...                        ...
>>>>>       hrtimer_try_to_cancel()     ...                        ...
>>>>>    switched_to_fair()             ...                        ...
>>>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)        ...                        (asquired)
>>>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>>>> do_exit()                         ...                        ...
>>>>>    schedule()                     ...                        ...
>>>>>       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)    ...                        raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>       ...                         ...                        ...
>>>>>       raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)  ...                        raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>>>       ...                         ...                        (asquired)
>>>>>       put_task_struct()           ...                        ...
>>>>>           free_task_struct()      ...                        ...
>>>>>       ...                         ...                        raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>>> ...                               (asquired)                 ...
>>>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>>>> ...                               Surprise!!!                ...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's implement 100% guaranteed way to cancel the timer and let's
>>>>> be sure we are safe even in very unlikely situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not create any problem with rq unlocking, because it already
>>>>> may happed below in pull_dl_task(). No problem with deadline tasks
>>>>> balancing too.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't sound right. pull_dl_task() is an entirely different
>>>> callchain than switched_from(). Now it might still be fine, but you
>>>> cannot compare it with pull_dl_task.
>>>
>>> I mean that caller of switched_from_dl() already knows about this situation,
>>> and we do not limit the area of its use.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure what you mean with "the caller already knows...". Also, can you
>> detail more about the different callchains?
> 
> We have only caller of switched_from_dl(). It's check_class_changed().
> This function doesn't suppose that lock is always locked during its call.
> 
> What other details you want?
> 

Ok, now is more clear, thanks. I was just wondering about what Peter
asked. If you can detail more about why we are still fine with it,
instead that just "it already was possible in pull_dl_task() below",
that would be nice to have.

Also, check_class_changed() is called from several places
(rt_mutex_setprio() for example), are we fine with all this callplaces
as well?

>>
>> Do you have any test for this situation? Do you experienced any crash?
>> As you know, the replenishment timer is of key importance for us, and
>> I'd like to be 100% sure we don't introduce any problems with this
>> change :).
> 
> No, I haven't written any tests to reproduce namely this situation.
> I found it by code analyzing. The same way we fixed the problem
> with rq change in dl_task_timer():
> 
>     http://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg49080.html
>

Yeah, but I did write a test for that race:

 "Juri Lelli reports he got this race when dl_bandwidth_enabled()
  was not set."

And after that I felt more confident about the change :).

> Are you agree the race is here? It's my fix, and if brings a problem
> please clarify it.
> 

Yeah, it seems that the race may happen. I'm just saying that it would
be nice to see it happening before we fix the thing. I wish I have some
time to try to setup a test. Even if I can't spot any problems with your
patch, apart from small comments below, not being completely confident
that this doesn't introduce regression elsewhere brought me to ask from
more details.

> I'm waiting for your reply.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kirill
> 
>>> Does this sound better?
>>>
>>> [PATCH] sched/dl: Implement cancel_dl_timer() to use in switched_from_dl()
>>>     
>>> Currently used hrtimer_try_to_cancel() is racy:
>>>
>>> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>> ...                            dl_task_timer                 raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>> ...                               raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)   ...
>>>    switched_from_dl()             ...                        ...
>>>       hrtimer_try_to_cancel()     ...                        ...
>>>    switched_to_fair()             ...                        ...
>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)        ...                        (asquired)
>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>> do_exit()                         ...                        ...
>>>    schedule()                     ...                        ...
>>>       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)    ...                        raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>>       ...                         ...                        ...
>>>       raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)  ...                        raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>>>       ...                         ...                        (asquired)
>>>       put_task_struct()           ...                        ...
>>>           free_task_struct()      ...                        ...
>>>       ...                         ...                        raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>>> ...                               (asquired)                 ...
>>> ...                               ...                        ...
>>> ...                               (use after free)           ...
>>>
>>>     
>>> So, let's implement 100% guaranteed way to cancel the timer and let's
>>> be sure we are safe even in very unlikely situations.
>>>
>>> rq unlocking does not limit the area of switched_from_dl() use, because
>>> it already was possible in pull_dl_task() below.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>> index abfaf3d..63f8b4a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>> @@ -555,11 +555,6 @@ void init_dl_task_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct hrtimer *timer = &dl_se->dl_timer;
>>>  
>>> -	if (hrtimer_active(timer)) {
>>> -		hrtimer_try_to_cancel(timer);
>>> -		return;
>>> -	}
>>> -
>>>  	hrtimer_init(timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>>>  	timer->function = dl_task_timer;
>>>  }
>>> @@ -1567,10 +1562,34 @@ void init_sched_dl_class(void)
>>>  
>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + *  Surely cancel task's dl_timer. May drop rq->lock.
>>> + */

Maybe we can add comments explaining why we are fine releasing the lock
here.

>>> +static void cancel_dl_timer(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct hrtimer *dl_timer = &p->dl.dl_timer;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Nobody will change task's class if pi_lock is held */
>>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
>>> +
>>> +	if (hrtimer_active(dl_timer)) {
>>> +		int ret = hrtimer_try_to_cancel(dl_timer);
>>> +
>>> +		if (unlikely(ret == -1)) {
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * Note, p may migrate OR new deadline tasks
>>> +			 * may appear in rq when we are unlocking it.
>>> +			 */

Yeah, some comments also here on why this is all good?

Thanks a lot Kirill!

Best,

- Juri

>>> +			raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>>> +			hrtimer_cancel(dl_timer);
>>> +			raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>>  {
>>> -	if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.dl_timer) && !dl_policy(p->policy))
>>> -		hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&p->dl.dl_timer);
>>> +	cancel_dl_timer(rq, p);
>>>  
>>>  	__dl_clear_params(p);
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

--
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/