Commit 67692435c4 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
inadvertly introduced a race because it changed a previously
unexplored dependency between dropping the rq->lock and
sched_class::put_prev_task().
The comments about dropping rq->lock, in for example
newidle_balance(), only mentions the task being current and ->on_cpu
being set. But when we look at the 'change' pattern (in for example
sched_setnuma()):
queued = task_on_rq_queued(p); /* p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED */
running = task_current(rq, p); /* rq->curr == p */
if (queued)
dequeue_task(...);
if (running)
put_prev_task(...);
/* change task properties */
if (queued)
enqueue_task(...);
if (running)
set_next_task(...);
It becomes obvious that if we do this after put_prev_task() has
already been called on @p, things go sideways. This is exactly what
the commit in question allows to happen when it does:
prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf);
if (!rq->nr_running)
newidle_balance(rq, rf);
The newidle_balance() call will drop rq->lock after we've called
put_prev_task() and that allows the above 'change' pattern to
interleave and mess up the state.
Furthermore, it turns out we lost the RT-pull when we put the last DL
task.
Fix both problems by extracting the balancing from put_prev_task() and
doing a multi-class balance() pass before put_prev_task().
Fixes: 67692435c4 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
Reported-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
6e2df0581f