linux-stable.git/kernel/sched/core.c, branch v6.6.76

sched: Initialize idle tasks only once

2025-01-09T12:31:39+00:00

[ Upstream commit b23decf8ac9102fc52c4de5196f4dc0a5f3eb80b ]

Idle tasks are initialized via __sched_fork() twice:

     fork_idle()
        copy_process()
	  sched_fork()
             __sched_fork()
	init_idle()
          __sched_fork()

Instead of cleaning this up, sched_ext hacked around it. Even when analyis
and solution were provided in a discussion, nobody cared to clean this up.

init_idle() is also invoked from sched_init() to initialize the boot CPU's
idle task, which requires the __sched_fork() invocation. But this can be
trivially solved by invoking __sched_fork() before init_idle() in
sched_init() and removing the __sched_fork() invocation from init_idle().

Do so and clean up the comments explaining this historical leftover.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241028103142.359584747@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

sched/deadline: Collect sched_dl_entity initialization

2024-12-14T19:00:19+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9e07d45c5210f5dd6701c00d55791983db7320fa ]

Create a single function that initializes a sched_dl_entity.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Reviewed-by: Phil Auld 
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/51acc695eecf0a1a2f78f9a044e11ffd9b316bcf.1699095159.git.bristot@kernel.org
Stable-dep-of: 0664e2c311b9 ("sched/deadline: Fix warning in migrate_enable for boosted tasks")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

sched/fair: Rename check_preempt_curr() to wakeup_preempt()

2024-12-14T19:00:18+00:00

[ Upstream commit e23edc86b09df655bf8963bbcb16647adc787395 ]

The name is a bit opaque - make it clear that this is about wakeup
preemption.

Also rename the ->check_preempt_curr() methods similarly.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Stable-dep-of: 0664e2c311b9 ("sched/deadline: Fix warning in migrate_enable for boosted tasks")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

sched/core: Prevent wakeup of ksoftirqd during idle load balance

2024-12-14T19:00:18+00:00

[ Upstream commit e932c4ab38f072ce5894b2851fea8bc5754bb8e5 ]

Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. If the SMP function is invoked
from an idle CPU via flush_smp_call_function_queue() then the HARD-IRQ
flag is not set and raise_softirq_irqoff() needlessly wakes ksoftirqd
because soft interrupts are handled before ksoftirqd get on the CPU.

Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
current behavior:

       -0   [000] dN.1.:  nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
       -0   [000] dN.4.:  sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
       -0   [000] .Ns1.:  softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
       -0   [000] .Ns1.:  softirq_exit: vec=7  [action=SCHED]
       -0   [000] d..2.:  sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
  ksoftirqd/0-16  [000] d..2.:  sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
       ...

Use __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise the softirq. The SMP function call
is always invoked on the requested CPU in an interrupt handler. It is
guaranteed that soft interrupts are handled at the end.

Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
set of events:

       -0       [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
       -0       [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
       -0       [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]

No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
service the softirq.

Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
Reported-by: Julia Lawall 
Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241119054432.6405-5-kprateek.nayak@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

sched/core: Remove the unnecessary need_resched() check in nohz_csd_func()

2024-12-14T19:00:18+00:00

[ Upstream commit ea9cffc0a154124821531991d5afdd7e8b20d7aa ]

The need_resched() check currently in nohz_csd_func() can be tracked
to have been added in scheduler_ipi() back in 2011 via commit
ca38062e57e9 ("sched: Use resched IPI to kick off the nohz idle balance")

Since then, it has travelled quite a bit but it seems like an idle_cpu()
check currently is sufficient to detect the need to bail out from an
idle load balancing. To justify this removal, consider all the following
case where an idle load balancing could race with a task wakeup:

o Since commit f3dd3f674555b ("sched: Remove the limitation of WF_ON_CPU
  on wakelist if wakee cpu is idle") a target perceived to be idle
  (target_rq->nr_running == 0) will return true for
  ttwu_queue_cond(target) which will offload the task wakeup to the idle
  target via an IPI.

  In all such cases target_rq->ttwu_pending will be set to 1 before
  queuing the wake function.

  If an idle load balance races here, following scenarios are possible:

  - The CPU is not in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode in which case an actual
    IPI is sent to the CPU to wake it out of idle. If the
    nohz_csd_func() queues before sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle load
    balance will bail out since idle_cpu(target) returns 0 since
    target_rq->ttwu_pending is 1. If the nohz_csd_func() is queued after
    sched_ttwu_pending() it should see rq->nr_running to be non-zero and
    bail out of idle load balancing.

  - The CPU is in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode and instead of an actual IPI,
    the sender will simply set TIF_NEED_RESCHED for the target to put it
    out of idle and flush_smp_call_function_queue() in do_idle() will
    execute the call function. Depending on the ordering of the queuing
    of nohz_csd_func() and sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle_cpu() check in
    nohz_csd_func() should either see target_rq->ttwu_pending = 1 or
    target_rq->nr_running to be non-zero if there is a genuine task
    wakeup racing with the idle load balance kick.

o The waker CPU perceives the target CPU to be busy
  (targer_rq->nr_running != 0) but the CPU is in fact going idle and due
  to a series of unfortunate events, the system reaches a case where the
  waker CPU decides to perform the wakeup by itself in ttwu_queue() on
  the target CPU but target is concurrently selected for idle load
  balance (XXX: Can this happen? I'm not sure, but we'll consider the
  mother of all coincidences to estimate the worst case scenario).

  ttwu_do_activate() calls enqueue_task() which would increment
  "rq->nr_running" post which it calls wakeup_preempt() which is
  responsible for setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED (via a resched IPI or by
  setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED on a TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG idle CPU) The key
  thing to note in this case is that rq->nr_running is already non-zero
  in case of a wakeup before TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set which would
  lead to idle_cpu() check returning false.

In all cases, it seems that need_resched() check is unnecessary when
checking for idle_cpu() first since an impending wakeup racing with idle
load balancer will either set the "rq->ttwu_pending" or indicate a newly
woken task via "rq->nr_running".

Chasing the reason why this check might have existed in the first place,
I came across  Peter's suggestion on the fist iteration of Suresh's
patch from 2011 [1] where the condition to raise the SCHED_SOFTIRQ was:

	sched_ttwu_do_pending(list);

	if (unlikely((rq->idle == current) &&
	    rq->nohz_balance_kick &&
	    !need_resched()))
		raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);

Since the condition to raise the SCHED_SOFIRQ was preceded by
sched_ttwu_do_pending() (which is equivalent of sched_ttwu_pending()) in
the current upstream kernel, the need_resched() check was necessary to
catch a newly queued task. Peter suggested modifying it to:

	if (idle_cpu() && rq->nohz_balance_kick && !need_resched())
		raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);

where idle_cpu() seems to have replaced "rq->idle == current" check.

Even back then, the idle_cpu() check would have been sufficient to catch
a new task being enqueued. Since commit b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize
send_call_function_single_ipi()") overloads the interpretation of
TIF_NEED_RESCHED for TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG idling, remove the
need_resched() check in nohz_csd_func() to raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ based
on Peter's suggestion.

Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra 
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241119054432.6405-3-kprateek.nayak@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

sched/core: Disable page allocation in task_tick_mm_cid()

2024-11-01T00:58:20+00:00

[ Upstream commit 73ab05aa46b02d96509cb029a8d04fca7bbde8c7 ]

With KASAN and PREEMPT_RT enabled, calling task_work_add() in
task_tick_mm_cid() may cause the following splat.

[   63.696416] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:48
[   63.696416] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 610, name: modprobe
[   63.696416] preempt_count: 10001, expected: 0
[   63.696416] RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 1

This problem is caused by the following call trace.

  sched_tick() [ acquire rq->__lock ]
   -> task_tick_mm_cid()
    -> task_work_add()
     -> __kasan_record_aux_stack()
      -> kasan_save_stack()
       -> stack_depot_save_flags()
        -> alloc_pages_mpol_noprof()
         -> __alloc_pages_noprof()
	  -> get_page_from_freelist()
	   -> rmqueue()
	    -> rmqueue_pcplist()
	     -> __rmqueue_pcplist()
	      -> rmqueue_bulk()
	       -> rt_spin_lock()

The rq lock is a raw_spinlock_t. We can't sleep while holding
it. IOW, we can't call alloc_pages() in stack_depot_save_flags().

The task_tick_mm_cid() function with its task_work_add() call was
introduced by commit 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression
introduced by mm_cid") in v6.4 kernel.

Fortunately, there is a kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc() variant that
calls stack_depot_save_flags() while not allowing it to allocate
new pages.  To allow task_tick_mm_cid() to use task_work without
page allocation, a new TWAF_NO_ALLOC flag is added to enable calling
kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc() instead of kasan_record_aux_stack()
if set. The task_tick_mm_cid() function is modified to add this new flag.

The possible downside is the missing stack trace in a KASAN report due
to new page allocation required when task_work_add_noallloc() is called
which should be rare.

Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241010014432.194742-1-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

membarrier: riscv: Add full memory barrier in switch_mm()

2024-09-12T09:11:45+00:00

commit d6cfd1770f20392d7009ae1fdb04733794514fa9 upstream.

The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier after storing
to rq->curr, before going back to user-space.  The barrier is only
needed when switching between processes: the barrier is implied by
mmdrop() when switching from kernel to userspace, and it's not needed
when switching from userspace to kernel.

Rely on the feature/mechanism ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_CALLBACKS and on the
primitive membarrier_arch_switch_mm(), already adopted by the PowerPC
architecture, to insert the required barrier.

Fixes: fab957c11efe2f ("RISC-V: Atomic and Locking Code")
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri 
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240131144936.29190-2-parri.andrea@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt 
Signed-off-by: WangYuli 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

sched/core: Fix unbalance set_rq_online/offline() in sched_cpu_deactivate()

2024-08-14T11:59:00+00:00

commit fe7a11c78d2a9bdb8b50afc278a31ac177000948 upstream.

If cpuset_cpu_inactive() fails, set_rq_online() need be called to rollback.

Fixes: 120455c514f7 ("sched: Fix hotplug vs CPU bandwidth control")
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240703031610.587047-5-yangyingliang@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

sched/core: Introduce sched_set_rq_on/offline() helper

2024-08-14T11:59:00+00:00

commit 2f027354122f58ee846468a6f6b48672fff92e9b upstream.

Introduce sched_set_rq_on/offline() helper, so it can be called
in normal or error path simply. No functional changed.

Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240703031610.587047-4-yangyingliang@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

sched/smt: Fix unbalance sched_smt_present dec/inc

2024-08-14T11:59:00+00:00

commit e22f910a26cc2a3ac9c66b8e935ef2a7dd881117 upstream.

I got the following warn report while doing stress test:

jump label: negative count!
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 38 at kernel/jump_label.c:263 static_key_slow_try_dec+0x9d/0xb0
Call Trace:
 
 __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked+0x16/0x70
 sched_cpu_deactivate+0x26e/0x2a0
 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x3ad/0x10d0
 cpuhp_thread_fun+0x3f5/0x680
 smpboot_thread_fn+0x56d/0x8d0
 kthread+0x309/0x400
 ret_from_fork+0x41/0x70
 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
 

Because when cpuset_cpu_inactive() fails in sched_cpu_deactivate(),
the cpu offline failed, but sched_smt_present is decremented before
calling sched_cpu_deactivate(), it leads to unbalanced dec/inc, so
fix it by incrementing sched_smt_present in the error path.

Fixes: c5511d03ec09 ("sched/smt: Make sched_smt_present track topology")
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu 
Reviewed-by: Tim Chen 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240703031610.587047-3-yangyingliang@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman