sched: 'Annotate' migrate_tasks()

Kernel testing triggered this warning:

| WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 13 at kernel/sched/core.c:1156 do_set_cpus_allowed+0x7e/0x80()
| Modules linked in:
| CPU: 0 PID: 13 Comm: migration/0 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc1-00049-g25834c7 #2
| Call Trace:
|   dump_stack+0x4b/0x75
|   warn_slowpath_common+0x8b/0xc0
|   warn_slowpath_null+0x22/0x30
|   do_set_cpus_allowed+0x7e/0x80
|   cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback+0x7c/0x170
|   select_fallback_rq+0x221/0x280
|   migration_call+0xe3/0x250
|   notifier_call_chain+0x53/0x70
|   __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x1e/0x30
|   cpu_notify+0x28/0x50
|   take_cpu_down+0x22/0x40
|   multi_cpu_stop+0xd5/0x140
|   cpu_stopper_thread+0xbc/0x170
|   smpboot_thread_fn+0x174/0x2f0
|   kthread+0xc4/0xe0
|   ret_from_kernel_thread+0x21/0x30

As Peterz pointed out:

| So the normal rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed are holding
| both pi_lock and rq->lock, such that holding either stabilizes the mask.
|
| This is so that wakeup can happen without rq->lock and load-balance
| without pi_lock.
|
| From this we already get the relaxation that we can omit acquiring
| rq->lock if the task is not on the rq, because in that case
| load-balancing will not apply to it.
|
| ** these are the rules currently tested in do_set_cpus_allowed() **
|
| Now, since __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() uses task_rq_lock() which
| unconditionally acquires both locks, we could get away with holding just
| rq->lock when on_rq for modification because that'd still exclude
| __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), it would also work against
| __kthread_bind_mask() because that assumes !on_rq.
|
| That said, this is all somewhat fragile.
|
| Now, I don't think dropping rq->lock is quite as disastrous as it
| usually is because !cpu_active at this point, which means load-balance
| will not interfere, but that too is somewhat fragile.
|
| So we end up with a choice of two fragile..

This patch fixes it by following the rules for changing
task_struct::cpus_allowed with both pi_lock and rq->lock held.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <ying.huang@intel.com>
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
[ Modified changelog and patch. ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/BLU436-SMTP1660820490DE202E3934ED3806E0@phx.gbl
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0902e4d72671c942dc205506d84474aebc05e7e7..9b786704d34b8e1f91425043ad6109323f81eed0 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -5183,24 +5183,47 @@ static void migrate_tasks(struct rq *dead_rq)
                        break;
 
                /*
-                * Ensure rq->lock covers the entire task selection
-                * until the migration.
+                * pick_next_task assumes pinned rq->lock.
                 */
                lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock);
                next = pick_next_task(rq, &fake_task);
                BUG_ON(!next);
                next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next);
 
+               /*
+                * Rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed are holding
+                * both pi_lock and rq->lock, such that holding either
+                * stabilizes the mask.
+                *
+                * Drop rq->lock is not quite as disastrous as it usually is
+                * because !cpu_active at this point, which means load-balance
+                * will not interfere. Also, stop-machine.
+                */
+               lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
+               raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
+               raw_spin_lock(&next->pi_lock);
+               raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+
+               /*
+                * Since we're inside stop-machine, _nothing_ should have
+                * changed the task, WARN if weird stuff happened, because in
+                * that case the above rq->lock drop is a fail too.
+                */
+               if (WARN_ON(task_rq(next) != rq || !task_on_rq_queued(next))) {
+                       raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
+                       continue;
+               }
+
                /* Find suitable destination for @next, with force if needed. */
                dest_cpu = select_fallback_rq(dead_rq->cpu, next);
 
-               lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
                rq = __migrate_task(rq, next, dest_cpu);
                if (rq != dead_rq) {
                        raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
                        rq = dead_rq;
                        raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
                }
+               raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
        }
 
        rq->stop = stop;