sched/core: Fix RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak
Igor Raits and Bagas Sanjaya report a RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning. This warning may be triggered in the following situations: CPU0 CPU1 __schedule() *rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;* unregister_fair_sched_group() pick_next_task_fair+0x4a/0x410 destroy_cfs_bandwidth() newidle_balance+0x115/0x3e0 for_each_possible_cpu(i) *i=0* rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf) __cfsb_csd_unthrottle() raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq) rq_lock(*CPU0_rq*, &rf) rq_clock_start_loop_update() rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP <-- raw_spin_rq_lock(this_rq) The purpose of RQCF_ACT_SKIP is to skip the update rq clock, but the update is very early in __schedule(), but we clear RQCF_*_SKIP very late, causing it to span that gap above and triggering this warning. In __schedule() we can clear the RQCF_*_SKIP flag immediately after update_rq_clock() to avoid this RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning. And set rq->clock_update_flags to RQCF_UPDATED to avoid rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP warning that may be triggered later. Fixes: ebb83d84e49b ("sched/core: Avoid multiple calling update_rq_clock() in __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()") Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913082424.73252-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com Reported-by: Igor Raits <igor.raits@gmail.com> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/a5dd536d-041a-2ce9-f4b7-64d8d85c86dc@gmail.com
This commit is contained in:
parent
4e5b65a22b
commit
5ebde09d91
@ -5361,8 +5361,6 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
|
||||
/* switch_mm_cid() requires the memory barriers above. */
|
||||
switch_mm_cid(rq, prev, next);
|
||||
|
||||
rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP);
|
||||
|
||||
prepare_lock_switch(rq, next, rf);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Here we just switch the register state and the stack. */
|
||||
@ -6600,6 +6598,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
|
||||
/* Promote REQ to ACT */
|
||||
rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;
|
||||
update_rq_clock(rq);
|
||||
rq->clock_update_flags = RQCF_UPDATED;
|
||||
|
||||
switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
|
||||
|
||||
@ -6679,8 +6678,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
|
||||
/* Also unlocks the rq: */
|
||||
rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP);
|
||||
|
||||
rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);
|
||||
__balance_callbacks(rq);
|
||||
raw_spin_rq_unlock_irq(rq);
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user