From: Eric W. Biederman Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:33:58 +0000 (-0500) Subject: tasks, sched/core: Ensure tasks are available for a grace period after leaving the... X-Git-Tag: v5.15~5393^2~14 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=0ff7b2cfbae36ebcd216c6a5ad7f8534eebeaee2;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-starfive.git tasks, sched/core: Ensure tasks are available for a grace period after leaving the runqueue In the ordinary case today the RCU grace period for a task_struct is triggered when another process wait's for it's zombine and causes the kernel to call release_task(). As the waiting task has to receive a signal and then act upon it before this happens, typically this will occur after the original task as been removed from the runqueue. Unfortunaty in some cases such as self reaping tasks it can be shown that release_task() will be called starting the grace period for task_struct long before the task leaves the runqueue. Therefore use put_task_struct_rcu_user() in finish_task_switch() to guarantee that the there is a RCU lifetime after the task leaves the runqueue. Besides the change in the start of the RCU grace period for the task_struct this change may cause perf_event_delayed_put and trace_sched_process_free. The function perf_event_delayed_put boils down to just a WARN_ON for cases that I assume never show happen. So I don't see any problem with delaying it. The function trace_sched_process_free is a trace point and thus visible to user space. Occassionally userspace has the strangest dependencies so this has a miniscule chance of causing a regression. This change only changes the timing of when the tracepoint is called. The change in timing arguably gives userspace a more accurate picture of what is going on. So I don't expect there to be a regression. In the case where a task self reaps we are pretty much guaranteed that the RCU grace period is delayed. So we should get quite a bit of coverage in of this worst case for the change in a normal threaded workload. So I expect any issues to turn up quickly or not at all. I have lightly tested this change and everything appears to work fine. Inspired-by: Linus Torvalds Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Chris Metcalf Cc: Christoph Lameter Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin Cc: Thomas Gleixner Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87r24jdpl5.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c index 7eefe33..d6e5525 100644 --- a/kernel/fork.c +++ b/kernel/fork.c @@ -902,10 +902,13 @@ static struct task_struct *dup_task_struct(struct task_struct *orig, int node) if (orig->cpus_ptr == &orig->cpus_mask) tsk->cpus_ptr = &tsk->cpus_mask; - /* One for the user space visible state that goes away when reaped. */ - refcount_set(&tsk->rcu_users, 1); - /* One for the rcu users, and one for the scheduler */ - refcount_set(&tsk->usage, 2); + /* + * One for the user space visible state that goes away when reaped. + * One for the scheduler. + */ + refcount_set(&tsk->rcu_users, 2); + /* One for the rcu users */ + refcount_set(&tsk->usage, 1); #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE tsk->btrace_seq = 0; #endif diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 06961b9..5e5fefb 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -3254,7 +3254,7 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev) /* Task is done with its stack. */ put_task_stack(prev); - put_task_struct(prev); + put_task_struct_rcu_user(prev); } tick_nohz_task_switch();