sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu after set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
RFC PATCH 2/2 sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu after set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu after set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu after set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
The 'new_mask' may not include task_cpu(p) so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.
Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.
Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifying dest_cpu == -1).
Note, any_active_cpu() instead of any_online_cpu() would be better here.
kernel/sched.c +14 -12
@@ -5774,21 +5774,23 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const cpumask_t *new_mask) }/* Can the task run on the task's current CPU? If so, we're done */ -if (cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), *new_mask)) - goto out; +while (!cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), p->cpus_allowed)) { +int cpu =any_online_cpu (p->cpus_allowed); -if (migrate_task (p,any_online_cpu (*new_mask), &req)) { -/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ -struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; +if (migrate_task (p, cpu, &req)) { +/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ +struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; -get_task_struct (mt); -task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); -wake_up_process (mt); -put_task_struct (mt); +get_task_struct (mt); +task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); +wake_up_process (mt); +put_task_struct (mt); -wait_for_completion (&req.done); -tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); -return 0 ; +wait_for_completion (&req.done); +tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); + + rq =task_rq_lock (p, &flags); + } } out:task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags);
Quoted 18 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()The '
new_mask' may not includetask_cpu(p)so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the
migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Quoted 7 lines
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to
migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifyingdest_cpu== -1).Note,
any_active_cpu()instead ofany_online_cpu()would be better here.
Hrmm,.. this is all growing into something of a mess.. defeating the whole purpose of introducing that cpu_active_map stuff.
Would the suggested SRCU logic simplify all this?
Quoted 44 lines
Signed-off-by Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>kernel/sched.c +14
-12@@ -5774,21 +5774,23 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const cpumask_t *new_mask) }/* Can the task run on the task's current CPU? If so, we're done */ -if (cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), *new_mask)) - goto out; +while (!cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), p->cpus_allowed)) { +int cpu =any_online_cpu (p->cpus_allowed); -if (migrate_task (p,any_online_cpu (*new_mask), &req)) { -/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ -struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; +if (migrate_task (p, cpu, &req)) { +/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ +struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; -get_task_struct (mt); -task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); -wake_up_process (mt); -put_task_struct (mt); +get_task_struct (mt); +task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); +wake_up_process (mt); +put_task_struct (mt); -wait_for_completion (&req.done); -tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); -return 0 ; +wait_for_completion (&req.done); +tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); + + rq =task_rq_lock (p, &flags); + } } out:task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags);
2008/7/25 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>:
Quoted 25 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 24 lines
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()The '
new_mask' may not includetask_cpu(p)so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the
migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to
migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifyingdest_cpu== -1).
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Note,
any_active_cpu()instead ofany_online_cpu()would be better here.Hrmm,.. this is all growing into something of a mess.. defeating the whole purpose of introducing that
cpu_active_mapstuff.Would the suggested SRCU logic simplify all this?
Ah, wait a second.
sched_setaffinity() -> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() is ok vs. cpu_down() as it does use get_online_cpus(). So none of the cpus can become offline while we are in set_cpus_allowed_ptr().
but there are numerous calls to set_cpus_allowed_ptr() from other places and not all of them seem to call get_online_cpus()...
yeah, I should check this issue again..
btw., indeed all these different sync. cases are a bit of mess.
---
btw., I was wondering about this change:
ba42059fbd0aa1ac91b582412b5fedb1258f241f
sched: hrtick_enabled() should use cpu_active()
Peter pointed out that hrtick_enabled() should use cpu_active().
Quoted 47 lines
Quoted 45 lines
Signed-off-by Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>kernel/sched.c +14
-12@@ -5774,21 +5774,23 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const cpumask_t *new_mask) }/* Can the task run on the task's current CPU? If so, we're done */ -if (cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), *new_mask)) - goto out; +while (!cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), p->cpus_allowed)) { +int cpu =any_online_cpu (p->cpus_allowed); -if (migrate_task (p,any_online_cpu (*new_mask), &req)) { -/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ -struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; +if (migrate_task (p, cpu, &req)) { +/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ +struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; -get_task_struct (mt); -task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); -wake_up_process (mt); -put_task_struct (mt); +get_task_struct (mt); +task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); +wake_up_process (mt); +put_task_struct (mt); -wait_for_completion (&req.done); -tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); -return 0 ; +wait_for_completion (&req.done); +tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); + + rq =task_rq_lock (p, &flags); + } } out:task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags);
Signature · 2 lines
Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 39 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
2008/7/25 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>:
Quoted 25 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 24 lines
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()The '
new_mask' may not includetask_cpu(p)so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the
migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to
migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifyingdest_cpu== -1).Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Note,
any_active_cpu()instead ofany_online_cpu()would be better here.Hrmm,.. this is all growing into something of a mess.. defeating the whole purpose of introducing that
cpu_active_mapstuff.Would the suggested SRCU logic simplify all this?
Ah, wait a second.
sched_setaffinity()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr()is ok vs.cpu_down()as it does useget_online_cpus(). So none of the cpus can become offline while we are inset_cpus_allowed_ptr().
Quoted 6 lines
but there are numerous calls to
set_cpus_allowed_ptr()from other places and not all of them seem to callget_online_cpus()...yeah, I should check this issue again..
btw., indeed all these different sync. cases are a bit of mess.
Will ponder it a bit more, but my brain can't seem to let go of SRCU now.. I'll go concentrate on making the swap-over-nfs patches prettier, maybe that will induce a brainwave ;-)
Quoted 9 lines
---
btw., I was wondering about this change:
ba42059fbd0aa1ac91b582412b5fedb1258f241fsched:
hrtick_enabled()should usecpu_active()Peter pointed out that
hrtick_enabled()should usecpu_active().
What exactly were you wondering about?
It seemed a good idea to stop starting hrtimers before we migrate them to another cpu (one of the things done later in cpu_down), thereby avoiding spurious fires on remote cpus.
2008/7/25 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>:
Quoted 43 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 42 lines
2008/7/25 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>:
Quoted 25 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 24 lines
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()The '
new_mask' may not includetask_cpu(p)so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the
migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to
migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifyingdest_cpu== -1).Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Note,
any_active_cpu()instead ofany_online_cpu()would be better here.Hrmm,.. this is all growing into something of a mess.. defeating the whole purpose of introducing that
cpu_active_mapstuff.Would the suggested SRCU logic simplify all this?
Ah, wait a second.
sched_setaffinity()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr()is ok vs.cpu_down()as it does useget_online_cpus(). So none of the cpus can become offline while we are inset_cpus_allowed_ptr().but there are numerous calls to
set_cpus_allowed_ptr()from other places and not all of them seem to callget_online_cpus()...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
yeah, I should check this issue again..
btw., indeed all these different sync. cases are a bit of mess.
Will ponder it a bit more, but my brain can't seem to let go of SRCU now..
I like it too.
Quoted 2 lines
I'll go concentrate on making the swap-over-nfs patches prettier, maybe that will induce a brainwave ;-)
what's about task-migration over NFS? ;-)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
btw., I was wondering about this change:
ba42059fbd0aa1ac91b582412b5fedb1258f241fsched:
hrtick_enabled()should usecpu_active()
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Peter pointed out that
hrtick_enabled()should usecpu_active().What exactly were you wondering about?
It seemed a good idea to stop starting hrtimers before we migrate them to another cpu (one of the things done later in
cpu_down), thereby avoiding spurious fires on remote cpus.
Yeah, I thought that it's likely cpu_down() related.
I looked at it from the point of cpu_up(), e.g. a cpu is online -> tasks get queued and start running (while cpu is still _not_ active for a while). So when they get enqueued first time, hrtick_enabled() wil give 0 and hr-timer won't be used.
Actually, cpu_active_map has already broken expectations/assumptions -
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/24/260 (in case you have missed it). But this particular "microcode"s behavior is really bad, I think.
Signature · 2 lines
Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
Quoted 12 lines · Dmitry Adamushko
From: Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>
Subject: sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()---
sched, hotplug: ensure a task is on the valid cpu afterset_cpus_allowed_ptr()The '
new_mask' may not includetask_cpu(p)so we migrate 'p' on another 'cpu'. In case it can't be placed on this 'cpu' immediately, we submit a request to the migration thread and wait for its completion.
Quoted 8 lines
Now, by the moment this request gets handled by the
migration_thread, 'cpu' may well be offline/non-active. As a result, 'p' continues running on its old cpu which is not in the 'new_mask'.Fix it: ensure 'p' ends up on a valid cpu.
Theoreticaly (but unlikely), we may get an endless loop if someone cpu_down()'s a new cpu we have choosen on each iteration.
Hi Dmitry,
Wasn't set_cpus_allowed_ptr() created from set_cpus_allowed() code path ?
that means this bug (if it really is one....) has been around for quite some time now!!
Quoted 56 lines
Alternatively, we may introduce a special type of request to
migration_thread, namely "move_to_any_allowed_cpu" (e.g. by specifyingdest_cpu== -1).Note,
any_active_cpu()instead ofany_online_cpu()would be better here.Signed-off-by Dmitry Adamushko <[email protected]>kernel/sched.c +14
-13@@ -5774,21 +5774,23 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const cpumask_t *new_mask) }/* Can the task run on the task's current CPU? If so, we're done */ -if (cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), *new_mask)) - goto out; +while (!cpu_isset (task_cpu (p), p->cpus_allowed)) { +int cpu =any_online_cpu (p->cpus_allowed); -if (migrate_task (p,any_online_cpu (*new_mask), &req)) { -/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ -struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; +if (migrate_task (p, cpu, &req)) { +/* Need to wait for migration thread (might exit: take ref). */ +struct task_struct *mt = rq->migration_thread; -get_task_struct (mt); -task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); -wake_up_process (mt); -put_task_struct (mt); +get_task_struct (mt); +task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); +wake_up_process (mt); +put_task_struct (mt); -wait_for_completion (&req.done); -tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); -return 0 ; +wait_for_completion (&req.done); +tlb_migrate_finish (p->mm); + + rq =task_rq_lock (p, &flags); + } } out:task_rq_unlock (rq, &flags); --To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Signature · 2 lines
Thanks and Regards gautham