Re: [PATCH 00/18] sched: balance callbacks v4

[Byungchul Park]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:46:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Mike stumbled over a cute bug where the RT/DL balancing ops caused a bug.

Hello.

We also faced this bug in our embedded product using stable tree. Eventually,
we found that these patch set exactly dealt with the problem. Now, I am just
curious about if you have any plans to merge this to stable trees to make
the stable trees stabler.

Hm?

> 
> The exact scenario is __sched_setscheduler() changing a (runnable) task from
> FIFO to OTHER. In swiched_from_rt(), where we do pull_rt_task() we temporarity
> drop rq->lock. This gap allows regular cfs load-balancing to step in and
> migrate our task.
> 
> However, check_class_changed() will happily continue with switched_to_fair()
> which assumes our task is still on the old rq and makes the kernel go boom.
> 
> Instead of trying to patch this up and make things complicated; simply disallow
> these methods to drop rq->lock and extend the current post_schedule stuff into
> a balancing callback list, and use that.
> 
> This survives Mike's testcase.
> 
> Changes since -v3:
>  - reworked the hrtimer stuff, again. -- Kirill, Oleg
>  - small changes to the new lockdep stuff
> 
> Changes since -v2:
>  - reworked the hrtimer patch. -- Kirill, tglx
>  - added lock pinning
> 
> Changes since -v1:
>  - make SMP=n build,
>  - cured switched_from_dl()'s cancel_dl_timer().
> 
> no real tests on the new parts other than booting / building kernels.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
--
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/