Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1416577 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-07 22:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 9 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[RFC][PATCH 0/8] PI and assorted failings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:20 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 1/8] rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:20 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 8/8] rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 4/8] rtmutex: Remove rt_mutex_fastunlock() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 6/8] sched/rtmutex: Refactor rt_mutex_setprio() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH 7/8] sched,tracing: Update trace_sched_pi_setprio() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PI and assorted failings |
| Message-ID | <rHvDI-7fg-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Since Mathieu tried adding more !DEADLINE aware tracing and I'd been neglecting Xunlei's patches, I figured I'd have a go at all that. Here a stack of patches I ended up with looking at the assorted 'features' in our PI code. The code is compile tested only, contains some notes and in general needs more love.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 1/8] rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter |
| Message-ID | <rHvDJ-7fg-51@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
We should deboost before waking the high-prio task, such that
we don't run two tasks with the same "state"(priority, deadline,
sched_class, etc) during the period between the end of wake_up_q()
and the end of rt_mutex_adjust_prio().
As "Peter Zijlstra" said:
Its semantically icky to have the two tasks running off the same
state and practically icky when you consider bandwidth inheritance --
where the boosted task wants to explicitly modify the state of the
booster. In that latter case you really want to unboost before you
let the booster run again.
But this however can lead to prio-inversion if current would get
preempted after the deboost but before waking our high-prio task,
hence we disable preemption before doing deboost, and enabling it
after the wake up is over.
The patch fixed the logic, and introduced rt_mutex_postunlock()
to do some code refactor.
Most importantly however; this change ensures pointer stability for
the next patch, where we have rt_mutex_setprio() cache a pointer to
the top-most waiter task. If we, as before this change, do the wakeup
first and then deboost, this pointer might point into thin air.
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
[peterz: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461659449-19497-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com
---
kernel/futex.c | 5 ++---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1336,9 +1336,8 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
* scheduled away before the wake up can take place.
*/
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
- wake_up_q(&wake_q);
- if (deboost)
- rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+
+ rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
return 0;
}
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1390,12 +1390,32 @@ rt_mutex_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *loc
} else {
bool deboost = slowfn(lock, &wake_q);
- wake_up_q(&wake_q);
+ rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
+ }
+}
+
- /* Undo pi boosting if necessary: */
- if (deboost)
- rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+/*
+ * Undo pi boosting (if necessary) and wake top waiter.
+ */
+void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost)
+{
+ /*
+ * We should deboost before waking the top waiter task such that
+ * we don't run two tasks with the 'same' priority. This however
+ * can lead to prio-inversion if we would get preempted after
+ * the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence the
+ * preempt_disable.
+ */
+ if (deboost) {
+ preempt_disable();
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
}
+
+ wake_up_q(wake_q);
+
+ if (deboost)
+ preempt_enable();
}
/**
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(st
extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *l, struct hrtimer_sleeper *to);
extern bool rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wqh);
+extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost);
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update |
| Message-ID | <rHvNn-7ix-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Currently dl tasks will actually return at the very beginning
of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() in !detect_deadlock cases:
if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
if (!detect_deadlock)
goto out_unlock_pi; // out here
else
requeue = false;
}
As the deadline value of blocked deadline tasks(waiters) without
changing their sched_class(thus prio doesn't change) never changes,
this seems reasonable, but it actually misses the chance of updating
rt_mutex_waiter's "dl_runtime(period)_copy" if a waiter updates its
deadline parameters(dl_runtime, dl_period) or boosted waiter changes
to !deadline class.
Thus, force deadline task not out by adding the !dl_prio() condition.
[peterz: I should introduce more task state comparators like
rt_mutex_waiter_less, all PI prio comparisons already have this DL
exception, except this one]
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460633827-345-7-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
* enabled we continue, but stop the requeueing in the chain
* walk.
*/
- if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
+ if (waiter->prio == task->prio && !dl_task(task)) {
if (!detect_deadlock)
goto out_unlock_pi;
else
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 8/8] rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity |
| Message-ID | <rHvNn-7ix-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
rt_mutex_waiter::prio is a copy of task_struct::prio which is updated
during the PI chain walk, such that the PI chain order isn't messed up
by (asynchronous) task state updates.
Currently rt_mutex_waiter_less() uses task state for deadline tasks;
this is broken, since the task state can, as said above, change
asynchronously, causing the RB tree order to change without actual
tree update -> FAIL.
Fix this by also copying the deadline into the rt_mutex_waiter state
and updating it along with its prio field.
Ideally we would also force PI chain updates whenever DL tasks update
their deadline parameter, but for first approximation this is less
broken than it was.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 +++--
kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -172,8 +172,7 @@ rt_mutex_waiter_less(struct rt_mutex_wai
* then right waiter has a dl_prio() too.
*/
if (dl_prio(left->prio))
- return dl_time_before(left->task->dl.deadline,
- right->task->dl.deadline);
+ return dl_time_before(left->deadline, right->deadline);
return 0;
}
@@ -585,6 +584,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
/* [7] Requeue the waiter in the lock waiter tree. */
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
waiter->prio = task->prio;
+ waiter->deadline = task->dl.deadline;
rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter);
/* [8] Release the task */
@@ -855,6 +855,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
waiter->task = task;
waiter->lock = lock;
waiter->prio = task->prio;
+ waiter->deadline = task->dl.deadline;
/* Get the top priority waiter on the lock */
if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct rt_mutex_waiter {
struct rt_mutex *deadlock_lock;
#endif
int prio;
+ u64 deadline;
};
/*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 4/8] rtmutex: Remove rt_mutex_fastunlock() |
| Message-ID | <rHvNo-7ix-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
There is but a single user and the previous patch mandates slowfn must
be rt_mutex_slowunlock(), so fold the lot together and save a few
lines.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1377,24 +1377,6 @@ rt_mutex_fasttrylock(struct rt_mutex *lo
return slowfn(lock);
}
-static inline void
-rt_mutex_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
- bool (*slowfn)(struct rt_mutex *lock,
- struct wake_q_head *wqh))
-{
- WAKE_Q(wake_q);
-
- if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(lock, current, NULL))) {
- rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
-
- } else {
- bool deboost = slowfn(lock, &wake_q);
-
- rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
- }
-}
-
-
/*
* Undo pi boosting (if necessary) and wake top waiter.
*/
@@ -1501,7 +1483,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_trylock);
*/
void __sched rt_mutex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
- rt_mutex_fastunlock(lock, rt_mutex_slowunlock);
+ WAKE_Q(wake_q);
+
+ if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(lock, current, NULL))) {
+ rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
+
+ } else {
+ bool deboost = rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, &wake_q);
+
+ rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
+ }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 6/8] sched/rtmutex: Refactor rt_mutex_setprio() |
| Message-ID | <rHvNo-7ix-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
With the introduction of SCHED_DEADLINE the whole notion that priority
is a single number is gone, therefore the @prio argument to
rt_mutex_setprio() doesn't make sense anymore.
So rework the code to pass a pi_task instead.
Note this also fixes a problem with pi_top_task caching; previously we
would not set the pointer (call rt_mutex_update_top_task) if the
priority didn't change, this could lead to a stale pointer.
As for the XXX, I think its fine to use pi_task->prio, because if it
differs from waiter->prio, a PI chain update is immenent.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/sched/rt.h | 21 +-------
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 105 +++++++++++-----------------------------
kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 1
kernel/sched/core.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/sched/rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/rt.h
@@ -16,28 +16,17 @@ static inline int rt_task(struct task_st
}
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
-extern int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p);
-extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio);
-extern int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
-extern void rt_mutex_update_top_task(struct task_struct *p);
-extern struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task);
+static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->pi_top_task;
+}
+extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, struct task_struct *pi_task);
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *p);
static inline bool tsk_is_pi_blocked(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
return tsk->pi_blocked_on != NULL;
}
#else
-static inline int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p)
-{
- return p->normal_prio;
-}
-
-static inline int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task,
- int newprio)
-{
- return newprio;
-}
-
static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
{
return NULL;
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -256,61 +256,16 @@ rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(struct task_struct *
RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->pi_tree_entry);
}
-void rt_mutex_update_top_task(struct task_struct *p)
+static void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *p)
{
- if (!task_has_pi_waiters(p)) {
- p->pi_top_task = NULL;
- return;
- }
+ struct task_struct *pi_task = NULL;
- p->pi_top_task = task_top_pi_waiter(p)->task;
-}
-
-/*
- * Calculate task priority from the waiter tree priority
- *
- * Return task->normal_prio when the waiter tree is empty or when
- * the waiter is not allowed to do priority boosting
- */
-int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *task)
-{
- if (likely(!task_has_pi_waiters(task)))
- return task->normal_prio;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
- return min(task_top_pi_waiter(task)->prio,
- task->normal_prio);
-}
+ if (!task_has_pi_waiters(p))
+ pi_task = task_top_pi_waiter(p)->task;
-struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
-{
- return task->pi_top_task;
-}
-
-/*
- * Called by sched_setscheduler() to get the priority which will be
- * effective after the change.
- */
-int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
-{
- struct task_struct *top_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(task);
-
- if (!top_task)
- return newprio;
-
- return min(top_task->prio, newprio);
-}
-
-/*
- * Adjust the priority of a task, after its pi_waiters got modified.
- *
- * This can be both boosting and unboosting. task->pi_lock must be held.
- */
-static void __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task)
-{
- int prio = rt_mutex_getprio(task);
-
- if (task->prio != prio || dl_prio(prio))
- rt_mutex_setprio(task, prio);
+ rt_mutex_setprio(p, pi_task);
}
/*
@@ -670,7 +625,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
*/
rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, prerequeue_top_waiter);
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
} else if (prerequeue_top_waiter == waiter) {
/*
@@ -686,7 +641,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, waiter);
waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
} else {
/*
* Nothing changed. No need to do any priority
@@ -896,7 +851,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
return -EDEADLK;
raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
waiter->task = task;
waiter->lock = lock;
waiter->prio = task->prio;
@@ -918,7 +873,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, top_waiter);
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, waiter);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
if (owner->pi_blocked_on)
chain_walk = 1;
} else if (rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(waiter, chwalk)) {
@@ -970,13 +925,14 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
/*
- * Remove it from current->pi_waiters. We do not adjust a
- * possible priority boost right now. We execute wakeup in the
- * boosted mode and go back to normal after releasing
- * lock->wait_lock.
+ * Remove it from current->pi_waiters and deboost.
+ *
+ * We must in fact deboost here in order to ensure we call
+ * rt_mutex_setprio() to update p->pi_top_task before the
+ * task unblocks.
*/
rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(current, waiter);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
/*
* As we are waking up the top waiter, and the waiter stays
@@ -988,9 +944,19 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
*/
lock->owner = (void *) RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS;
- raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
-
+ /*
+ * We deboosted before waking the top waiter task such that we don't
+ * run two tasks with the 'same' priority (and ensure the
+ * p->pi_top_task pointer points to a blocked task). This however can
+ * lead to priority inversion if we would get preempted after the
+ * deboost but before waking our donor task, hence the preempt_disable()
+ * before unlock.
+ *
+ * Pairs with preempt_enable() in rt_mutex_postunlock();
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
+ raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
}
/*
@@ -1025,7 +991,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
/* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */
next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner);
@@ -1064,8 +1030,7 @@ void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_stru
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
waiter = task->pi_blocked_on;
- if (!waiter || (waiter->prio == task->prio &&
- !dl_prio(task->prio))) {
+ if (!waiter || (waiter->prio == task->prio && !dl_prio(task->prio))) {
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
return;
}
@@ -1316,16 +1281,6 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
*/
mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
- /*
- * We should deboost before waking the top waiter task such that
- * we don't run two tasks with the 'same' priority. This however
- * can lead to prio-inversion if we would get preempted after
- * the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence the
- * preempt_disable before unlock. Pairs with preempt_enable() in
- * rt_mutex_postunlock();
- */
- preempt_disable();
-
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
/* call rt_mutex_postunlock() */
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -112,7 +112,6 @@ extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(str
extern bool rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wqh);
extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q);
-extern void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
# include "rtmutex-debug.h"
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3532,10 +3532,25 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(default_wake_function);
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
+static inline int __rt_effective_prio(struct task_struct *pi_task, int prio)
+{
+ if (pi_task)
+ prio = min(prio, pi_task->prio);
+
+ return prio;
+}
+
+static inline int rt_effective_prio(struct task_struct *p, int prio)
+{
+ struct task_struct *pi_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(p);
+
+ return __rt_effective_prio(pi_task, prio);
+}
+
/*
* rt_mutex_setprio - set the current priority of a task
- * @p: task
- * @prio: prio value (kernel-internal form)
+ * @p: task to boost
+ * @pi_task: donor task
*
* This function changes the 'effective' priority of a task. It does
* not touch ->normal_prio like __setscheduler().
@@ -3543,16 +3558,40 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(default_wake_function);
* Used by the rt_mutex code to implement priority inheritance
* logic. Call site only calls if the priority of the task changed.
*/
-void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio)
+void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, struct task_struct *pi_task)
{
- int oldprio, queued, running, queue_flag = DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE;
+ int prio, oldprio, queued, running, queue_flag = DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE;
const struct sched_class *prev_class;
struct rq_flags rf;
struct rq *rq;
- BUG_ON(prio > MAX_PRIO);
+ /* XXX used to be waiter->prio, not waiter->task->prio */
+ prio = __rt_effective_prio(pi_task, p->normal_prio);
+
+ /*
+ * If nothing changed; bail early.
+ */
+ if (p->pi_top_task == pi_task && prio == p->prio && !dl_prio(prio))
+ return;
rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
+ /*
+ * Set under pi_lock && rq->lock, such that the value can be used under
+ * either lock.
+ *
+ * Note that there is loads of tricky to make this pointer cache work
+ * right. rt_mutex_slowunlock()+rt_mutex_postunlock() work together to
+ * ensure a task is de-boosted (pi_task is set to NULL) before the
+ * task is allowed to run again (and can exit). This ensures the pointer
+ * points to a blocked task -- which guaratees the task is present.
+ */
+ p->pi_top_task = pi_task;
+
+ /*
+ * For FIFO/RR we only need to set prio, if that matches we're done.
+ */
+ if (prio == p->prio && !dl_prio(prio))
+ goto out_unlock;
/*
* Idle task boosting is a nono in general. There is one
@@ -3572,9 +3611,7 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
goto out_unlock;
}
- rt_mutex_update_top_task(p);
-
- trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio);
+ trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio); /* broken */
oldprio = p->prio;
if (oldprio == prio)
@@ -3598,7 +3635,6 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
* running task
*/
if (dl_prio(prio)) {
- struct task_struct *pi_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(p);
if (!dl_prio(p->normal_prio) ||
(pi_task && dl_entity_preempt(&pi_task->dl, &p->dl))) {
p->dl.dl_boosted = 1;
@@ -3635,6 +3671,11 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
balance_callback(rq);
preempt_enable();
}
+#else
+static inline int rt_effective_prio(struct task_struct p, int prio)
+{
+ return prio;
+}
#endif
void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
@@ -3873,10 +3914,9 @@ static void __setscheduler(struct rq *rq
* Keep a potential priority boosting if called from
* sched_setscheduler().
*/
+ p->prio = normal_prio(p);
if (keep_boost)
- p->prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, normal_prio(p));
- else
- p->prio = normal_prio(p);
+ p->prio = rt_effective_prio(p, p->prio);
if (dl_prio(p->prio))
p->sched_class = &dl_sched_class;
@@ -4163,7 +4203,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t
* the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
* itself.
*/
- new_effective_prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, newprio);
+ new_effective_prio = rt_effective_prio(p, newprio);
if (new_effective_prio == oldprio)
queue_flags &= ~DEQUEUE_MOVE;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up |
| Message-ID | <rHvNo-7ix-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/futex.c | 12 ++++++------
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
struct futex_pi_state *pi_state = this->pi_state;
u32 uninitialized_var(curval), newval;
WAKE_Q(wake_q);
- bool deboost;
+ bool postunlock;
int ret = 0;
if (!pi_state)
@@ -1327,17 +1327,17 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- deboost = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
+ postunlock = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
/*
* First unlock HB so the waiter does not spin on it once he got woken
- * up. Second wake up the waiter before the priority is adjusted. If we
- * deboost first (and lose our higher priority), then the task might get
- * scheduled away before the wake up can take place.
+ * up. Then wakeup the waiter by calling rt_mutex_postunlock(). Priority
+ * is already adjusted and preemption is disabled to avoid inversion.
*/
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
- rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
+ if (postunlock)
+ rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q);
return 0;
}
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1254,7 +1254,8 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
/*
* Slow path to release a rt-mutex.
- * Return whether the current task needs to undo a potential priority boosting.
+ *
+ * Return whether the current task needs to call rt_mutex_postunlock().
*/
static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
@@ -1327,7 +1328,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
- /* check PI boosting */
+ /* call rt_mutex_postunlock() */
return true;
}
@@ -1378,15 +1379,14 @@ rt_mutex_fasttrylock(struct rt_mutex *lo
}
/*
- * Undo pi boosting (if necessary) and wake top waiter.
+ * Performs the wakeup of the the top-waiter and re-enables preemption.
*/
-void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost)
+void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
wake_up_q(wake_q);
/* Pairs with preempt_disable() in rt_mutex_slowunlock() */
- if (deboost)
- preempt_enable();
+ preempt_enable();
}
/**
@@ -1489,9 +1489,8 @@ void __sched rt_mutex_unlock(struct rt_m
rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
} else {
- bool deboost = rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, &wake_q);
-
- rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
+ if (rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, &wake_q))
+ rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
@@ -1500,8 +1499,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
* rt_mutex_futex_unlock - Futex variant of rt_mutex_unlock
* @lock: the rt_mutex to be unlocked
*
- * Returns: true/false indicating whether priority adjustment is
- * required or not.
+ * Returns: true/false indicating whether we should call rt_mutex_postunlock().
*/
bool __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wqh)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(st
extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *l, struct hrtimer_sleeper *to);
extern bool rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wqh);
-extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost);
+extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q);
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks |
| Message-ID | <rHvNo-7ix-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
A crash happened while I was playing with deadline PI rtmutex.
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000018
IP: [<ffffffff810eeb8f>] rt_mutex_get_top_task+0x1f/0x30
PGD 232a75067 PUD 230947067 PMD 0
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
CPU: 1 PID: 10994 Comm: a.out Not tainted
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff810b658c>] enqueue_task+0x2c/0x80
[<ffffffff810ba763>] activate_task+0x23/0x30
[<ffffffff810d0ab5>] pull_dl_task+0x1d5/0x260
[<ffffffff810d0be6>] pre_schedule_dl+0x16/0x20
[<ffffffff8164e783>] __schedule+0xd3/0x900
[<ffffffff8164efd9>] schedule+0x29/0x70
[<ffffffff8165035b>] __rt_mutex_slowlock+0x4b/0xc0
[<ffffffff81650501>] rt_mutex_slowlock+0xd1/0x190
[<ffffffff810eeb33>] rt_mutex_timed_lock+0x53/0x60
[<ffffffff810ecbfc>] futex_lock_pi.isra.18+0x28c/0x390
[<ffffffff810ed8b0>] do_futex+0x190/0x5b0
[<ffffffff810edd50>] SyS_futex+0x80/0x180
This is because rt_mutex_enqueue_pi() and rt_mutex_dequeue_pi()
are only protected by pi_lock when operating pi waiters, while
rt_mutex_get_top_task(), will access them with rq lock held but
not holding pi_lock.
In order to tackle it, we introduce new "pi_top_task" pointer
cached in task_struct, and add new rt_mutex_update_top_task()
to update its value, it can be called by rt_mutex_setprio()
which held both owner's pi_lock and rq lock. Thus "pi_top_task"
can be safely accessed by enqueue_task_dl() under rq lock.
[XXX this next section is unparsable]
One problem is when rt_mutex_adjust_prio()->...->rt_mutex_setprio(),
at that time rtmutex lock was released and owner was marked off,
this can cause "pi_top_task" dereferenced to be a running one(as it
can be falsely woken up by others before rt_mutex_setprio() is
made to update "pi_top_task"). We solve this by directly calling
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio() in mark_wakeup_next_waiter() which held
pi_lock and rtmutex lock, and remove rt_mutex_adjust_prio(). Since
now we moved the deboost point, in order to avoid current to be
preempted due to deboost earlier before wake_up_q(), we also moved
preempt_disable() before unlocking rtmutex.
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Originally-From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461659449-19497-2-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com
---
include/linux/init_task.h | 1
include/linux/sched.h | 2 +
include/linux/sched/rt.h | 1
kernel/fork.c | 1
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +
6 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/init_task.h
+++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ extern struct task_group root_task_group
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
# define INIT_RT_MUTEXES(tsk) \
.pi_waiters = RB_ROOT, \
+ .pi_top_task = NULL, \
.pi_waiters_leftmost = NULL,
#else
# define INIT_RT_MUTEXES(tsk)
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1681,6 +1681,8 @@ struct task_struct {
/* PI waiters blocked on a rt_mutex held by this task */
struct rb_root pi_waiters;
struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost;
+ /* Updated under owner's pi_lock and rq lock */
+ struct task_struct *pi_top_task;
/* Deadlock detection and priority inheritance handling */
struct rt_mutex_waiter *pi_blocked_on;
#endif
--- a/include/linux/sched/rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/rt.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ static inline int rt_task(struct task_st
extern int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p);
extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio);
extern int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
+extern void rt_mutex_update_top_task(struct task_struct *p);
extern struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task);
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *p);
static inline bool tsk_is_pi_blocked(struct task_struct *tsk)
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1219,6 +1219,7 @@ static void rt_mutex_init_task(struct ta
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
p->pi_waiters = RB_ROOT;
p->pi_waiters_leftmost = NULL;
+ p->pi_top_task = NULL;
p->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
#endif
}
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -256,6 +256,16 @@ rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(struct task_struct *
RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->pi_tree_entry);
}
+void rt_mutex_update_top_task(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ if (!task_has_pi_waiters(p)) {
+ p->pi_top_task = NULL;
+ return;
+ }
+
+ p->pi_top_task = task_top_pi_waiter(p)->task;
+}
+
/*
* Calculate task priority from the waiter tree priority
*
@@ -273,10 +283,7 @@ int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct
struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
{
- if (likely(!task_has_pi_waiters(task)))
- return NULL;
-
- return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task;
+ return task->pi_top_task;
}
/*
@@ -285,12 +292,12 @@ struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_tas
*/
int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
{
- if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
+ struct task_struct *top_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(task);
+
+ if (!top_task)
return newprio;
- if (task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio <= newprio)
- return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio;
- return newprio;
+ return min(top_task->prio, newprio);
}
/*
@@ -307,24 +314,6 @@ static void __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struc
}
/*
- * Adjust task priority (undo boosting). Called from the exit path of
- * rt_mutex_slowunlock() and rt_mutex_slowlock().
- *
- * (Note: We do this outside of the protection of lock->wait_lock to
- * allow the lock to be taken while or before we readjust the priority
- * of task. We do not use the spin_xx_mutex() variants here as we are
- * outside of the debug path.)
- */
-void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task)
-{
- unsigned long flags;
-
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
- __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
-}
-
-/*
* Deadlock detection is conditional:
*
* If CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES=n, deadlock detection is only conducted
@@ -987,6 +976,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
* lock->wait_lock.
*/
rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(current, waiter);
+ __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
/*
* As we are waking up the top waiter, and the waiter stays
@@ -1325,6 +1315,16 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
*/
mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
+ /*
+ * We should deboost before waking the top waiter task such that
+ * we don't run two tasks with the 'same' priority. This however
+ * can lead to prio-inversion if we would get preempted after
+ * the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence the
+ * preempt_disable before unlock. Pairs with preempt_enable() in
+ * rt_mutex_postunlock();
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
/* check PI boosting */
@@ -1400,20 +1400,9 @@ rt_mutex_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *loc
*/
void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost)
{
- /*
- * We should deboost before waking the top waiter task such that
- * we don't run two tasks with the 'same' priority. This however
- * can lead to prio-inversion if we would get preempted after
- * the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence the
- * preempt_disable.
- */
- if (deboost) {
- preempt_disable();
- rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
- }
-
wake_up_q(wake_q);
+ /* Pairs with preempt_disable() in rt_mutex_slowunlock() */
if (deboost)
preempt_enable();
}
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3568,6 +3568,8 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
goto out_unlock;
}
+ rt_mutex_update_top_task(p);
+
trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio);
oldprio = p->prio;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC][PATCH 7/8] sched,tracing: Update trace_sched_pi_setprio() |
| Message-ID | <rHvNo-7ix-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1416577 |
Pass the PI donor task, instead of a numerical priority.
Numerical priorities are not sufficient to describe state ever since
SCHED_DEADLINE.
Annotate all sched tracepoints that are currently broken; fixing them
will bork userspace. *hate*.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/trace/events/sched.h | 16 +++++++++-------
kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/include/trace/events/sched.h
+++ b/include/trace/events/sched.h
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(sched_wakeup_templat
TP_fast_assign(
memcpy(__entry->comm, p->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = p->pid;
- __entry->prio = p->prio;
+ __entry->prio = p->prio; /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */
__entry->success = 1; /* rudiment, kill when possible */
__entry->target_cpu = task_cpu(p);
),
@@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_switch,
memcpy(__entry->prev_comm, prev->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->next_pid = next->pid;
__entry->next_prio = next->prio;
+ /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */
),
TP_printk("prev_comm=%s prev_pid=%d prev_prio=%d prev_state=%s%s ==> next_comm=%s next_pid=%d next_prio=%d",
@@ -181,7 +182,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_migrate_task,
TP_fast_assign(
memcpy(__entry->comm, p->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = p->pid;
- __entry->prio = p->prio;
+ __entry->prio = p->prio; /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */
__entry->orig_cpu = task_cpu(p);
__entry->dest_cpu = dest_cpu;
),
@@ -206,7 +207,7 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(sched_process_templa
TP_fast_assign(
memcpy(__entry->comm, p->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = p->pid;
- __entry->prio = p->prio;
+ __entry->prio = p->prio; /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */
),
TP_printk("comm=%s pid=%d prio=%d",
@@ -253,7 +254,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_process_wait,
TP_fast_assign(
memcpy(__entry->comm, current->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = pid_nr(pid);
- __entry->prio = current->prio;
+ __entry->prio = current->prio; /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */
),
TP_printk("comm=%s pid=%d prio=%d",
@@ -413,9 +414,9 @@ DEFINE_EVENT(sched_stat_runtime, sched_s
*/
TRACE_EVENT(sched_pi_setprio,
- TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *tsk, int newprio),
+ TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_struct *pi_task),
- TP_ARGS(tsk, newprio),
+ TP_ARGS(tsk, pi_task),
TP_STRUCT__entry(
__array( char, comm, TASK_COMM_LEN )
@@ -428,7 +429,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_pi_setprio,
memcpy(__entry->comm, tsk->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = tsk->pid;
__entry->oldprio = tsk->prio;
- __entry->newprio = newprio;
+ __entry->newprio = pi_task->prio;
+ /* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE bits missing */
),
TP_printk("comm=%s pid=%d oldprio=%d newprio=%d",
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3611,7 +3611,7 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct
goto out_unlock;
}
- trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio); /* broken */
+ trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, pi_task);
oldprio = p->prio;
if (oldprio == prio)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web