There is a race between kthread_stop() and the new wait_woken() that
can result in a lack of progress.
CPU 0 | CPU 1
|
rfcomm_run() | kthread_stop()
... |
if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP)) |
| set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP)
| wake_up_process()
wait_woken() | wait_for_completion()
set_current_state(INTERRUPTIBLE) |
if (!WQ_FLAG_WOKEN) |
schedule_timeout() |
|
After which both tasks will wait.. forever.
Fix this by having wait_woken() check for kthread_should_stop() but
only for kthreads (obviously).
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Validate we call might_sleep() with TASK_RUNNING, which catches places
where we nest blocking primitives, eg. mutex usage in a wait loop.
Since all blocking is arranged through task_struct::state, nesting
this will cause the inner primitive to set TASK_RUNNING and the outer
will thus not block.
Another observed problem is calling a blocking function from
schedule()->sched_submit_work()->blk_schedule_flush_plug() which will
then destroy the task state for the actual __schedule() call that
comes after it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: ilya.dryomov@inktank.com
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140924082242.591637616@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
We're going to make might_sleep() test for TASK_RUNNING, because
blocking without TASK_RUNNING will destroy the task state by setting
it to TASK_RUNNING.
There are a few occasions where its 'valid' to call blocking
primitives (and mutex_lock in particular) and not have TASK_RUNNING,
typically such cases are right before we set TASK_RUNNING anyhow.
Robustify the code by not assuming this; this has the beneficial side
effect of allowing optional code emission for fixing the above
might_sleep() false positives.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: ilya.dryomov@inktank.com
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140924082241.988560063@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
How we deal with updates to exclusive cpusets is currently broken.
As an example, suppose we have an exclusive cpuset composed of
two cpus: A[cpu0,cpu1]. We can assign SCHED_DEADLINE task to it
up to the allowed bandwidth. If we want now to modify cpusetA's
cpumask, we have to check that removing a cpu's amount of
bandwidth doesn't break AC guarantees. This thing isn't checked
in the current code.
This patch fixes the problem above, denying an update if the
new cpumask won't have enough bandwidth for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
that are currently active.
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/5433E6AF.5080105@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Exclusive cpusets are the only way users can restrict SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
affinity (performing what is commonly called clustered scheduling).
Unfortunately, such thing is currently broken for two reasons:
- No check is performed when the user tries to attach a task to
an exlusive cpuset (recall that exclusive cpusets have an
associated maximum allowed bandwidth).
- Bandwidths of source and destination cpusets are not correctly
updated after a task is migrated between them.
This patch fixes both things at once, as they are opposite faces
of the same coin.
The check is performed in cpuset_can_attach(), as there aren't any
points of failure after that function. The updated is split in two
halves. We first reserve bandwidth in the destination cpuset, after
we pass the check in cpuset_can_attach(). And we then release
bandwidth from the source cpuset when the task's affinity is
actually changed. Even if there can be time windows when sched_setattr()
may erroneously fail in the source cpuset, we are fine with it, as
we can't perfom an atomic update of both cpusets at once.
Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Reported-by: Vincent Legout <vincent@legout.info>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Cc: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@gmail.com>
Cc: michael@amarulasolutions.com
Cc: luca.abeni@unitn.it
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1411118561-26323-3-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Both callers of finish_task_switch() need to recalculate this_rq()
and pass it as an argument, plus __schedule() does this again after
context_switch().
It would be simpler to call this_rq() once in finish_task_switch()
and return the this rq to the callers.
Note: probably "int cpu" in __schedule() should die; it is not used
and both rcu_note_context_switch() and wq_worker_sleeping() do not
really need this argument.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141009193232.GB5408@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In pseudo-interleaved numa_groups, all tasks try to relocate to
the group's preferred_nid. When a group is spread across multiple
NUMA nodes, this can lead to tasks swapping their location with
other tasks inside the same group, instead of swapping location with
tasks from other NUMA groups. This can keep NUMA groups from converging.
Examining all nodes, when dealing with a task in a pseudo-interleaved
NUMA group, avoids this problem. Note that only CPUs in nodes that
improve the task or group score are examined, so the loop isn't too
bad.
Tested-by: Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Vinod Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Cc: mgorman@suse.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141009172747.0d97c38c@annuminas.surriel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Peter Zijlstra
Wanpeng Li
Juri Lelli
Oleg Nesterov
Rik van Riel