From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaron.lwe@gmail.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, pauld@redhat.com,
jdesfossez@digitalocean.com, naravamudan@digitalocean.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
mgorman@suse.de, kernel-team@android.com, john.stultz@linaro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:02:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191108110212.GA204618@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191107192907.GA30258@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thursday 07 Nov 2019 at 20:29:07 (+0100), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I still havne't had food, but this here compiles...
And it seems to work, too :)
> @@ -3929,13 +3929,17 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> }
>
> restart:
> - /*
> - * Ensure that we put DL/RT tasks before the pick loop, such that they
> - * can PULL higher prio tasks when we lower the RQ 'priority'.
> - */
> - prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf);
> - if (!rq->nr_running)
> - newidle_balance(rq, rf);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + for (class = prev->sched_class;
> + class != &idle_sched_class;
> + class = class->next) {
> +
> + if (class->balance(rq, prev, rf))
> + break;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> + put_prev_task(rq, prev);
Right, that looks much cleaner IMO. I'm thinking if we killed the
special case for CFS above we could do with a single loop to iterate the
classes, and you could fold ->balance() in ->pick_next_task() ...
That would remove one call site to newidle_balance() too, which I think
is good. Hackbench probably won't like that, though.
> for_each_class(class) {
> p = class->pick_next_task(rq, NULL, NULL);
> @@ -6201,7 +6205,7 @@ static struct task_struct *__pick_migrate_task(struct rq *rq)
> for_each_class(class) {
> next = class->pick_next_task(rq, NULL, NULL);
> if (next) {
> - next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next, NULL);
> + next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next);
> return next;
> }
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 2dc48720f189..b6c3fb10cf57 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1778,15 +1778,9 @@ pick_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> return p;
> }
>
> -static void put_prev_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +static int balance_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, struct rq_flags *rf)
> {
> - update_curr_dl(rq);
> -
> - update_dl_rq_load_avg(rq_clock_pelt(rq), rq, 1);
> - if (on_dl_rq(&p->dl) && p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> - enqueue_pushable_dl_task(rq, p);
> -
Ah, and this can actually be done after the pull because the two are in
fact mutually exclusive. And same thing for RT. Good :)
> - if (rf && !on_dl_rq(&p->dl) && need_pull_dl_task(rq, p)) {
> + if (!on_dl_rq(&p->dl) && need_pull_dl_task(rq, p)) {
> /*
> * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being
> * picked for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still
> @@ -1797,6 +1791,18 @@ static void put_prev_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, struct rq_fla
> pull_dl_task(rq);
> rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
> }
> +
> + return rq->dl.dl_nr_running > 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static void put_prev_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + update_curr_dl(rq);
> +
> + update_dl_rq_load_avg(rq_clock_pelt(rq), rq, 1);
> + if (on_dl_rq(&p->dl) && p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> + enqueue_pushable_dl_task(rq, p);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -2438,6 +2444,7 @@ const struct sched_class dl_sched_class = {
> .check_preempt_curr = check_preempt_curr_dl,
>
> .pick_next_task = pick_next_task_dl,
> + .balance = balance_dl,
> .put_prev_task = put_prev_task_dl,
> .set_next_task = set_next_task_dl,
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index a14487462b6c..6b983214e00f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6746,10 +6746,18 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static int balance_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> + if (rq->cfs.nr_running)
> + return 1;
> +
> + return newidle_balance(rq, rf) != 0;
And you can ignore the RETRY_TASK case here under the assumption that
we must have tried to pull from RT/DL before ending up here ?
Thanks,
Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-08 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-28 17:46 NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair Quentin Perret
2019-10-28 21:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-29 11:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-29 11:50 ` Quentin Perret
2019-10-30 22:50 ` Ram Muthiah
2019-10-31 1:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 10:54 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 14:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 22:15 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-11-06 12:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 15:04 ` Qais Yousef
2019-11-06 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 17:26 ` Qais Yousef
2019-11-06 15:51 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-06 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 8:36 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 13:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 15:12 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 15:53 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 15:38 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 18:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 19:27 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 19:42 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 19:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 11:02 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2019-11-08 11:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-11-08 11:58 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:15 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 11:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 16:09 ` Qais Yousef
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=20191108110212.GA204618@google.com \
--to=qperret@google.com \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).