Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Fix pick_next_task() vs change pattern race

[Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>]

On Friday 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:54 (+0100), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Commit 67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
> inadvertly introduced a race because it changed a previously
> unexplored dependency between dropping the rq->lock and
> sched_class::put_prev_task().
> 
> The comments about dropping rq->lock, in for example
> newidle_balance(), only mentions the task being current and ->on_cpu
> being set. But when we look at the 'change' pattern (in for example
> sched_setnuma()):
> 
> 	queued = task_on_rq_queued(p); /* p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED */
> 	running = task_current(rq, p); /* rq->curr == p */
> 
> 	if (queued)
> 		dequeue_task(...);
> 	if (running)
> 		put_prev_task(...);
> 
> 	/* change task properties */
> 
> 	if (queued)
> 		enqueue_task(...);
> 	if (running)
> 		set_next_task(...);
> 
> It becomes obvious that if we do this after put_prev_task() has
> already been called on @p, things go sideways. This is exactly what
> the commit in question allows to happen when it does:
> 
> 	prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf);
> 	if (!rq->nr_running)
> 		newidle_balance(rq, rf);
> 
> The newidle_balance() call will drop rq->lock after we've called
> put_prev_task() and that allows the above 'change' pattern to
> interleave and mess up the state.
> 
> Furthermore, it turns out we lost the RT-pull when we put the last DL
> task.
> 
> Fix both problems by extracting the balancing from put_prev_task() and
> doing a multi-class balance() pass before put_prev_task().
> 
> Fixes: 67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
> Reported-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

The reproducer that triggered in 30sec or so has now been running for
3 hours:

   Tested-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>

Thanks for fix,
Quentin