Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cputime: Fix using smp_processor_id() in preemptible

[Wanpeng Li]

2017-07-07 20:01 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:08:25AM -0700, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>  BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: 99-trinity/181
>>  caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
>>  CPU: 0 PID: 181 Comm: 99-trinity Not tainted 4.12.0-01059-g2a42eb9 #1
>>  Call Trace:
>>   dump_stack+0x82/0xb8
>>   check_preemption_disabled+0xd1/0xe3
>>   debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
>>   vtime_delta+0xd/0x2c
>>   task_cputime+0x89/0xdb
>>   thread_group_cputime+0x11b/0x1ed
>>   thread_group_cputime_adjusted+0x1f/0x47
>>   wait_consider_task+0x2a9/0xaf9
>>   ? lock_acquire+0x97/0xa4
>>   do_wait+0xdf/0x1f4
>>   SYSC_wait4+0x8e/0xb5
>>   ? list_add+0x34/0x34
>>   SyS_wait4+0x9/0xb
>>   do_syscall_64+0x70/0x82
>>   entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
>>
>> This patch fixes it by replacing sched_clock_cpu() in vtime_delta() by
>> local_clock() for effectively raw_smp_processor_id().
>
> That's also broken because task_cputime() can be called from a different CPU than
> where the target task is running on, even though there shouldn't be practical effect

Agreed.

> as the clock must be stable but still the code would be confusing.
>
> No I think you can still use sched_clock(), just make sure you also use it on
> arch_vtime_task_switch() and vtime_init_idle().

Is it acceptable to you, Peterz? :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li