Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:21:52 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Create new task with twice disabled
 preemption
Message-ID: <20140214122152.GD10590@arm.com>
References: <1392306716.5384.3.camel@tkhai>
 <20140213160013.GE6835@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <52FD01A6.8060404@yandex.ru>
 <20140214105255.GA10596@arm.com>
 <1392376569.5384.25.camel@tkhai>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1392376569.5384.25.camel@tkhai>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> В Птн, 14/02/2014 в 10:52 +0000, Catalin Marinas пишет:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:32:22PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > Look at ARM64's finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). It looks a task
> > > must to not be preempted between switch_mm() and this function.
> > > But in case of new task this is possible.
> > 
> > We had a thread about this at the end of last year:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/15/82
> >
> > There is indeed a problem on arm64, something like this (and I think
> > s390 also needs a fix):
> > 
> > 1. switch_mm() via check_and_switch_context() defers the actual mm
> >    switch by setting TIF_SWITCH_MM
> > 2. the context switch is considered 'done' by the kernel before
> >    finish_arch_post_lock_switch() and therefore we can be preempted to a
> >    new thread before finish_arch_post_lock_switch()
> > 3. The new thread has the same mm as the preempted thread but we
> >    actually missed the mm switching in finish_arch_post_lock_switch()
> >    because TIF_SWITCH_MM is per thread rather than mm
> > 
> > > This is the problem I tried to solve. I don't know arm64, and I can't
> > > say how it is serious.
> > 
> > Have you managed to reproduce this? I don't say it doesn't exist, but I
> > want to make sure that any patch actually fixes it.
> 
> No, I have not tried. I found this place while analysing scheduler code.
> But it seems with the RT technics suggested previous message it's quite
> possible.

Now I think I confused myself. Looking through the __schedule() code,
context_switch() and therefore finish_arch_post_lock_switch() are called
with preemption disabled. So the scenario above cannot exist since the
current thread cannot be preempted between switch_mm() and
finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). Do I miss anything?

Now I get your point about schedule_tail() which calls
finish_task_switch() with a preempt count of 0. I'll get back to your
original patch.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/