> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 07:46:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > In short, I got lost ;) Now I don't even understand why we do not need
> > another rmb() between p->on_rq and p->on_cpu. Suppose a thread T does
> >
> > set_current_state(...);
> > schedule();
> >
> > it can be preempted in between, after that we have "on_rq && !on_cpu".
> > Then it gets CPU again and calls schedule() which clears on_rq.
> >
> > What guarantees that if ttwu() sees on_rq == 0 cleared by schedule()
> > then it can _not_ still see the old value of on_cpu == 0?
I think you're right. Does the below adequately explain things?
I'll have another look tomorrow to see if I still agree with myself, but
for now I think I've convinced myself you're right.
---
Subject: sched: Fix race in try_to_wake_up() vs schedule()
Oleg noticed that its possible to falsely observe p->on_cpu == 0 such
that we'll prematurely continue with the wakeup and effectively run p on
two CPUs at the same time.
Even though the overlap is very limited; the task is in the middle of
being scheduled out; it could still result in corruption of the
scheduler data structures.
CPU0 CPU1
set_current_state(...)
<preempt_schedule>
context_switch(X, Y)
prepare_lock_switch(Y)
Y->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
try_to_wake_up(X)
LOCK(p->pi_lock);
t = X->on_cpu; // 0
context_switch(Y, X)
prepare_lock_switch(X)
X->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(Y)
store_release(Y->on_cpu, 0);
</preempt_schedule>
schedule();
deactivate_task(X);
X->on_rq = 0;
if (X->on_rq) // false
if (t) while (X->on_cpu)
cpu_relax();
context_switch(X, ..)
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
Avoid the load of X->on_cpu being hoisted over the X->on_rq load.
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2084,6 +2084,25 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
+ * Ensure we load p->on_cpu _after_ p->on_rq, otherwise it would be
+ * possible to, falsely, observe p->on_cpu == 0.
+ *
+ * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
+ * from the runqueue.
+ *
+ * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ * RMB
+ * LOCK rq->lock
+ * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu
+ *
+ * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock
+ * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our
+ * task, the second putting it to sleep.
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+
+ /*
* If the owning (remote) cpu is still in the middle of schedule() with
* this task as prev, wait until its done referencing the task.
*/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
