Hello, we tested this patch successfully with 3.2.35-rt53-rc1. The failure could not be reproduced in a 16 hours test run, so we are pretty sure that the failure is gone. Thanks for the quick inclusion of this pacth in stable-rt series! Best Regards, Gerhard Engleder -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: linux-rt-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rt-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Steven Rostedt Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 01:46 An: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rt-users Cc: Thomas Gleixner; Carsten Emde; John Kacur; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable-rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: [PATCH RT 1/2] sched: Queue RT tasks to head when prio drops From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> The following scenario does not work correctly: Runqueue of CPU1 contains two runnable and pinned tasks: T1: SCHED_FIFO, prio 80 T2: SCHED_FIFO, prio 80 T1 is on the cpu and executes the following syscalls (classic priority ceiling scenario): sys_sched_setscheduler(pid(T1), SCHED_FIFO, .prio = 90); ... sys_sched_setscheduler(pid(T1), SCHED_FIFO, .prio = 80); ... Now T1 gets preempted by T3 (SCHED_FIFO, prio 95). After T3 goes back to sleep the scheduler picks T2. Surprise! The same happens w/o actual preemption when T1 is forced into the scheduler due to a sporadic NEED_RESCHED event. The scheduler invokes pick_next_task() which returns T2. So T1 gets preempted and scheduled out. This happens because sched_setscheduler() dequeues T1 from the prio 90 list and then enqueues it on the tail of the prio 80 list behind T2. This violates the POSIX spec and surprises user space which relies on the guarantee that SCHED_FIFO tasks are not scheduled out unless they give the CPU up voluntarily or are preempted by a higher priority task. In the latter case the preempted task must get back on the CPU after the preempting task schedules out again. We fixed a similar issue already in commit 60db48c(sched: Queue a deboosted task to the head of the RT prio queue). The same treatment is necessary for sched_setscheduler(). While analyzing the problem I noticed that the fix in rt_mutex_setprio() is one off. The head queueing depends on old priority greater than new priority (user space view), but in fact it needs to have the same treatment for equal priority. Instead of blindly changing the condition to <= it's better to avoid the whole dequeue/requeue business for the equal priority case completely. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: stable-rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/sched/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 1f9d6f5..054e669 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -4117,6 +4117,8 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio) trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, prio); oldprio = p->prio; + if (oldprio == prio) + goto out_unlock; prev_class = p->sched_class; on_rq = p->on_rq; running = task_current(rq, p); @@ -4472,6 +4474,13 @@ recheck: task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags); goto recheck; } + + p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork; + + oldprio = p->prio; + if (oldprio == param->sched_priority) + goto out; + on_rq = p->on_rq; running = task_current(rq, p); if (on_rq) @@ -4479,18 +4488,17 @@ recheck: if (running) p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p); - p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork; - - oldprio = p->prio; prev_class = p->sched_class; __setscheduler(rq, p, policy, param->sched_priority); if (running) p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq); if (on_rq) - enqueue_task(rq, p, 0); + enqueue_task(rq, p, oldprio < param->sched_priority ? + ENQUEUE_HEAD : 0); check_class_changed(rq, p, prev_class, oldprio); +out: task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags); rt_mutex_adjust_pi(p); -- 1.7.10.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
