kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct() calling context
[ Upstream commit d243b34459
]
Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
One practical example is splat inside inactive_task_timer(), which is
called in a interrupt context:
CPU: 1 PID: 2848 Comm: life Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W ---------
Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL388p Gen8, BIOS P70 07/15/2012
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
mark_lock_irq.cold+0x33/0xba
mark_lock+0x1e7/0x400
mark_usage+0x11d/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x30d/0x930
lock_acquire.part.0+0x9c/0x210
rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0
refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
kmem_cache_free+0x357/0x560
inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
__run_hrtimer+0x8a/0x1a0
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x91/0x130
hrtimer_interrupt+0x10f/0x220
__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7b/0xd0
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4f/0xd0
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
RIP: 0033:0x7fff196bf6f5
Instead of calling __put_task_struct() directly, we defer it using
call_rcu(). A more natural approach would use a workqueue, but since
in PREEMPT_RT, we can't allocate dynamic memory from atomic context,
the code would become more complex because we would need to put the
work_struct instance in the task_struct and initialize it when we
allocate a new task_struct.
The issue is reproducible with stress-ng:
while true; do
stress-ng --sched deadline --sched-period 1000000000 \
--sched-runtime 800000000 --sched-deadline \
1000000000 --mmapfork 23 -t 20
done
Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <chuhu@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230614122323.37957-2-wander@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Родитель
430787056d
Коммит
f1ceff37ac
|
@ -108,10 +108,36 @@ static inline struct task_struct *get_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
extern void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t);
|
||||
extern void __put_task_struct_rcu_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp);
|
||||
|
||||
static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
|
||||
if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
|
||||
* in atomic context because it will indirectly
|
||||
* acquire sleeping locks.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
|
||||
* to be called in process context.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* __put_task_struct() is called when
|
||||
* refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage) succeeds.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This means that it can't "conflict" with
|
||||
* put_task_struct_rcu_user() which abuses ->rcu the same
|
||||
* way; rcu_users has a reference so task->usage can't be
|
||||
* zero after rcu_users 1 -> 0 transition.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
|
||||
* when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
|
||||
* way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && !preemptible())
|
||||
call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
|
||||
else
|
||||
__put_task_struct(t);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -764,6 +764,14 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
|
|||
}
|
||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
|
||||
|
||||
void __put_task_struct_rcu_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct task_struct *task = container_of(rhp, struct task_struct, rcu);
|
||||
|
||||
__put_task_struct(task);
|
||||
}
|
||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
|
||||
|
||||
void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
|
Загрузка…
Ссылка в новой задаче