Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Fix missing unlock in consume_dispatch_q()

[Zhang Qiao]

hello

在 2024/10/16 4:12, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:29:17PM +0800, Zhang Qiao wrote:
>> When the function consume_dispatch_q() returns true, the dsq lock may
>> remains held and is not unlocked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/ext.c | 16 +++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> index 410a4df8a121..4d80aa3de00e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
>> @@ -2377,7 +2377,8 @@ static inline bool consume_remote_task(struct rq *this_rq, struct task_struct *p
>>  static bool consume_dispatch_q(struct rq *rq, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq)
>>  {
>>  	struct task_struct *p;
>> -retry:
>> +	bool ret = false;
>> +
>>  	/*
>>  	 * The caller can't expect to successfully consume a task if the task's
>>  	 * addition to @dsq isn't guaranteed to be visible somehow. Test
>> @@ -2394,19 +2395,20 @@ static bool consume_dispatch_q(struct rq *rq, struct scx_dispatch_q *dsq)
>>  		if (rq == task_rq) {
>>  			task_unlink_from_dsq(p, dsq);
>>  			move_local_task_to_local_dsq(p, 0, dsq, rq);
>> -			raw_spin_unlock(&dsq->lock);
>> -			return true;
>> +			ret = true;
>> +			break;
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		if (task_can_run_on_remote_rq(p, rq, false)) {
>> -			if (likely(consume_remote_task(rq, p, dsq, task_rq)))
>> -				return true;
>> -			goto retry;
>> +			if (likely(consume_remote_task(rq, p, dsq, task_rq))) {
>> +				ret = true;
>> +				break;
>> +			}
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	raw_spin_unlock(&dsq->lock);
>> -	return false;
>> +	return ret;
> 
> Has this change been tested at all? There's quite a bit of lock dancing

I tested this patch using scx_simple scheduler.

> happening in the remote consumption path because the task needs to get
> hot-migrated to the local CPU - consume_remote_task() calls
> unlink_dsq_and_lock_src_rq() which drops the DSQ lock among other things.

Yes, i missed it.

Thanks.

> 
> Thanks.
>