Oleg noticed that its possible to falsely observe p->on_cpu == 0 such
that we'll prematurely continue with the wakeup and effectively run p on
two CPUs at the same time.
Even though the overlap is very limited; the task is in the middle of
being scheduled out; it could still result in corruption of the
scheduler data structures.
CPU0 CPU1
set_current_state(...)
<preempt_schedule>
context_switch(X, Y)
prepare_lock_switch(Y)
Y->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
try_to_wake_up(X)
LOCK(p->pi_lock);
t = X->on_cpu; // 0
context_switch(Y, X)
prepare_lock_switch(X)
X->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(Y)
store_release(Y->on_cpu, 0);
</preempt_schedule>
schedule();
deactivate_task(X);
X->on_rq = 0;
if (X->on_rq) // false
if (t) while (X->on_cpu)
cpu_relax();
context_switch(X, ..)
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
Avoid the load of X->on_cpu being hoisted over the X->on_rq load.
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
goto stat;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ /*
+ * Ensure we load p->on_cpu _after_ p->on_rq, otherwise it would be
+ * possible to, falsely, observe p->on_cpu == 0.
+ *
+ * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
+ * from the runqueue.
+ *
+ * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ * RMB
+ * LOCK rq->lock
+ * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu
+ *
+ * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock
+ * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our
+ * task, the second putting it to sleep.
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+
/*
* If the owning (remote) cpu is still in the middle of schedule() with
* this task as prev, wait until its done referencing the task.