提交 f253eed2 编写于 作者: Z Zhou Chengming 提交者: Xie XiuQi

sched/rt.c: pick and check task if double_lock_balance() unlock the rq

euler inclusion
category: bugfix
bugzilla: 2535
CVE: N/A

-------------------------------------------------

push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
lowest_rq, then double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq). So if
double_lock_balance() unlock the rq (when double_lock_balance() return 1),
we have to check if this task is still on the rq.

The problem is that the check conditions are not sufficient:

if (unlikely(task_rq(task) != rq ||
	     !cpumask_test_cpu(lowest_rq->cpu, &task->cpus_allowed) ||
	     task_running(rq, task) ||
	     !rt_task(task) ||
	     !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {

cpu2				cpu1			cpu0
push_rt_task(rq1)
  pick task_A on rq1
  find rq0
    double_lock_balance(rq1, rq0)
      unlock(rq1)
				rq1 __schedule
				  pick task_A run
				task_A sleep (dequeued)
      lock(rq0)
      lock(rq1)
    do_above_check(task_A)
      task_rq(task_A) == rq1
      cpus_allowed unchanged
      task_running == false
      rt_task(task_A) == true
							try_to_wake_up(task_A)
							  select_cpu = cpu3
							  enqueue(rq3, task_A)
							  task_A->on_rq = 1
      task_on_rq_queued(task_A)
    above_check passed, return rq0
    ...
    migrate task_A from rq1 to rq0

So we can't rely on these checks of task_A to make sure the task_A is
still on the rq1, even though we hold the rq1->lock. This patch will
repick the first pushable task to be sure the task is still on the rq.
Signed-off-by: NZhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NKefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NHui Wang <john.wanghui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NZhang Xiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>

Conflicts: kernel/sched/rt.c
Signed-off-by: NXuefeng Wang <wxf.wang@hisilicon.com>
Reviewed-by: NXie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NYang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
上级 a1ccb4ad
......@@ -1714,6 +1714,26 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
return -1;
}
static struct task_struct *pick_next_pushable_task(struct rq *rq)
{
struct task_struct *p;
if (!has_pushable_tasks(rq))
return NULL;
p = plist_first_entry(&rq->rt.pushable_tasks,
struct task_struct, pushable_tasks);
BUG_ON(rq->cpu != task_cpu(p));
BUG_ON(task_current(rq, p));
BUG_ON(p->nr_cpus_allowed <= 1);
BUG_ON(!p->on_rq);
BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
return p;
}
/* Will lock the rq it finds */
static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
{
......@@ -1747,11 +1767,11 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
* migrated already or had its affinity changed.
* Also make sure that it wasn't scheduled on its rq.
*/
if (unlikely(task_rq(task) != rq ||
!cpumask_test_cpu(lowest_rq->cpu, &task->cpus_allowed) ||
task_running(rq, task) ||
!rt_task(task) ||
!task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
struct task_struct *next_task = pick_next_pushable_task(rq);
if (unlikely(next_task != task ||
!rt_task(task) ||
!cpumask_test_cpu(lowest_rq->cpu, &task->cpus_allowed))) {
double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
lowest_rq = NULL;
......@@ -1771,26 +1791,6 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
return lowest_rq;
}
static struct task_struct *pick_next_pushable_task(struct rq *rq)
{
struct task_struct *p;
if (!has_pushable_tasks(rq))
return NULL;
p = plist_first_entry(&rq->rt.pushable_tasks,
struct task_struct, pushable_tasks);
BUG_ON(rq->cpu != task_cpu(p));
BUG_ON(task_current(rq, p));
BUG_ON(p->nr_cpus_allowed <= 1);
BUG_ON(!task_on_rq_queued(p));
BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
return p;
}
/*
* If the current CPU has more than one RT task, see if the non
* running task can migrate over to a CPU that is running a task
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册