On 21/12/21 16:45, John Keeping wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:11:34 +0000
> Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/21 18:35, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
>> > index ef8228d19382..798887f1eeff 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
>> > @@ -1895,9 +1895,17 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
>> > struct task_struct *push_task = NULL;
>> > int cpu;
>> >
>> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!rt_task(rq->curr))) {
>> > + printk("next_task=[%s %d] rq->curr=[%s %d]\n",
>> > + next_task->comm, next_task->pid, rq->curr->comm, rq->curr->pid);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > if (!pull || rq->push_busy)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > + if (!rt_task(rq->curr))
>> > + return 0;
>> > +
>>
>> If current is a DL/stopper task, why not; if that's CFS (which IIUC is your
>> case), that's buggered: we shouldn't be trying to pull RT tasks when we
>> have queued RT tasks and a less-than-RT current, we should be rescheduling
>> right now.
>>
>> I'm thinking this can happen via rt_mutex_setprio() when we demote an RT-boosted
>> CFS task (or straight up sched_setscheduler()):
>> check_class_changed()->switched_from_rt() doesn't trigger a resched_curr(),
>> so I suspect we get to the push/pull callback before getting a
>> resched (I actually don't see where we'd get a resched in that case other
>> than at the next tick).
>>
>> IOW, feels like we want the below. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the
>> issue locally (yet), so that's untested.
>
> This patch doesn't make any difference for me - I hit the BUG on the
> first boot with this applied.
>
Thanks for the swift testing!
Did you give Dietmar's patch a try? ITSM it lacks a resched_curr(), but if
we can somehow get to the push IRQ work before rescheduling (which I think
might happen if we try to resched_curr(this_rq)), then we need his
bailout.
