On 13/07/22 13:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Tasks the are being deboosted from SCHED_DEADLINE might enter
> > enqueue_task_dl() one last time and hit an erroneous BUG_ON condition:
> > since they are not boosted anymore, the if (is_dl_boosted()) branch is
> > not taken, but the else if (!dl_prio) is and inside this one we
> > BUG_ON(!is_dl_boosted), which is of course false (BUG_ON triggered)
> > otherwise we had entered the if branch above. Long story short, the
> > current condition doesn't make sense and always leads to triggering of a
> > BUG.
> >
> > Fix this by only checking enqueue flags, properly: ENQUEUE_REPLENISH has
> > to be present, but additional flags are not a problem.
> >
> > Fixes: 2279f540ea7d ("sched/deadline: Fix priority inheritance with multiple scheduling classes")
> > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index 5867e186c39a..0447d46f4718 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -1703,7 +1703,7 @@ static void enqueue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > * the throttle.
> > */
> > p->dl.dl_throttled = 0;
> > - BUG_ON(!is_dl_boosted(&p->dl) || flags != ENQUEUE_REPLENISH);
> > + BUG_ON(!(flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH));
>
> While there, can we perhaps make it less fatal?
Yep. On it. Thanks!
Juri
