From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()" locks up on ARM
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:21:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1306412511.1200.90.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1306409575.1200.71.camel@twins>
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 13:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> The bad news is of course that I've got a little more head-scratching to
> do, will keep you informed.
OK, that wasn't too hard.. (/me crosses fingers and prays Marc doesn't
find more funnies ;-).
Does the below cure all woes?
---
Subject: sched: Fix ttwu() for __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Thu May 26 14:21:33 CEST 2011
Marc reported that e4a52bcb9 (sched: Remove rq->lock from the first
half of ttwu()) broke his ARM-SMP machine. Now ARM is one of the few
__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW users, so that exception in the ttwu()
code was suspect.
Yong found that the interrupt could hit hits after context_switch() changes
current but before it clears p->on_cpu, if that interrupt were to
attempt a wake-up of p we would indeed find ourselves spinning in IRQ
context.
Sort this by reverting to the old behaviour for this situation and
perform a full remote wake-up.
Cc: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>
Cc: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/sched.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2573,7 +2573,26 @@ static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct tas
if (!next)
smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
}
-#endif
+
+#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
+static int ttwu_activate_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
+{
+ struct rq *rq;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
+ if (p->on_cpu) {
+ ttwu_activate(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
+ ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, wake_flags);
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ __task_rq_unlock(rq);
+
+ return ret;
+
+}
+#endif /* __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW */
+#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
{
@@ -2631,17 +2650,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
while (p->on_cpu) {
#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
/*
- * If called from interrupt context we could have landed in the
- * middle of schedule(), in this case we should take care not
- * to spin on ->on_cpu if p is current, since that would
- * deadlock.
+ * In case the architecture enables interrupts in
+ * context_switch(), we cannot busy wait, since that
+ * would lead to live-locks when an interrupt hits and
+ * tries to wake up @prev. So bail and do a complete
+ * remote wakeup.
*/
- if (p == current) {
- ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
+ if (ttwu_activate_remote(p, wake_flags))
goto stat;
- }
-#endif
+#else
cpu_relax();
+#endif
}
/*
* Pairs with the smp_wmb() in finish_lock_switch().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-26 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-24 18:13 [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()" locks up on ARM Marc Zyngier
2011-05-24 21:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-24 21:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 12:23 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-25 17:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-25 21:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 7:29 ` Yong Zhang
2011-05-26 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 11:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-26 11:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 12:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-05-26 12:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-26 12:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-26 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 12:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-26 13:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-26 14:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-05-27 12:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-27 17:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-27 19:41 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-05-27 20:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-28 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-31 11:08 ` Michal Simek
2011-05-31 13:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-31 13:37 ` Michal Simek
2011-05-31 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-31 14:08 ` Michal Simek
2011-05-31 14:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-29 10:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-05-29 10:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-29 12:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-05-29 13:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-05-29 21:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-05-29 9:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-06 10:29 ` Pavel Machek
2011-05-26 14:56 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-26 15:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-26 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 16:20 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-26 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-27 8:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-26 16:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-26 17:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-26 17:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 17:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-26 17:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-27 7:01 ` Yong Zhang
2011-05-27 15:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-05-27 15:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-05-27 15:30 ` Santosh Shilimkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1306412511.1200.90.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).