lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] kthread: Move prio/affinite change into the newly created thread
On 2020-11-17 13:45:03 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 12:38:47PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > With enabled threaded interrupts the nouveau driver reported the
> > following:
> > | Chain exists of:
> > | &mm->mmap_lock#2 --> &device->mutex --> &cpuset_rwsem
> > |
> > | Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > |
> > | CPU0 CPU1
> > | ---- ----
> > | lock(&cpuset_rwsem);
> > | lock(&device->mutex);
> > | lock(&cpuset_rwsem);
> > | lock(&mm->mmap_lock#2);
> >
> > The device->mutex is nvkm_device::mutex.
> >
> > Unblocking the lockchain at `cpuset_rwsem' is probably the easiest thing
> > to do.
> > Move the priority reset to the start of the newly created thread.
> >
> > Fixes: 710da3c8ea7df ("sched/core: Prevent race condition between cpuset and __sched_setscheduler()")
> > Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/a23a826af7c108ea5651e73b8fbae5e653f16e86.camel@gmx.de
>
> Moo... yes this is certainly the easiest solution, because nouveau is a
> horrible rats nest. But when I spoke to Greg KH about this, he suggested
> nouveau ought to be fixed.
>
> Ben, I got terminally lost when trying to untangle nouvea init, is there
> any chance this can be fixed to not hold that nvkm_device::mutex thing
> while doing request_irq() ?

Ben, did you had a chance to peek at this?

> > ---
> > kernel/kthread.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> > index 933a625621b8d..4a31127c6efbf 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kthread_parkme);
> >
> > static int kthread(void *_create)
> > {
> > + static const struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 0 };
> > /* Copy data: it's on kthread's stack */
> > struct kthread_create_info *create = _create;
> > int (*threadfn)(void *data) = create->threadfn;
> > @@ -273,6 +274,13 @@ static int kthread(void *_create)
> > init_completion(&self->parked);
> > current->vfork_done = &self->exited;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The new thread inherited kthreadd's priority and CPU mask. Reset
> > + * back to default in case they have been changed.
> > + */
> > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &param);
> > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_KTHREAD));
> > +
> > /* OK, tell user we're spawned, wait for stop or wakeup */
> > __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > create->result = current;
> > @@ -370,7 +378,6 @@ struct task_struct *__kthread_create_on_node(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> > }
> > task = create->result;
> > if (!IS_ERR(task)) {
> > - static const struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 0 };
> > char name[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -379,13 +386,6 @@ struct task_struct *__kthread_create_on_node(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> > */
> > vsnprintf(name, sizeof(name), namefmt, args);
> > set_task_comm(task, name);
> > - /*
> > - * root may have changed our (kthreadd's) priority or CPU mask.
> > - * The kernel thread should not inherit these properties.
> > - */
> > - sched_setscheduler_nocheck(task, SCHED_NORMAL, &param);
> > - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task,
> > - housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_KTHREAD));
> > }
> > kfree(create);
> > return task;

Sebastian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-20 23:19    [W:0.080 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site