mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
synced 2026-05-09 21:42:09 +02:00
John Stultz
2d76226698
As we add functionality to proxy execution, we may migrate a
donor task to a runqueue where it can't run due to cpu affinity.
Thus, we must be careful to ensure we return-migrate the task
back to a cpu in its cpumask when it becomes unblocked.
Peter helpfully provided the following example with pictures:
"Suppose we have a ww_mutex cycle:
,-+-* Mutex-1 <-.
Task-A ---' | | ,-- Task-B
`-> Mutex-2 *-+-'
Where Task-A holds Mutex-1 and tries to acquire Mutex-2, and
where Task-B holds Mutex-2 and tries to acquire Mutex-1.
Then the blocked_on->owner chain will go in circles.
Task-A -> Mutex-2
^ |
| v
Mutex-1 <- Task-B
We need two things:
- find_proxy_task() to stop iterating the circle;
- the woken task to 'unblock' and run, such that it can
back-off and re-try the transaction.
Now, the current code [without this patch] does:
__clear_task_blocked_on();
wake_q_add();
And surely clearing ->blocked_on is sufficient to break the
cycle.
Suppose it is Task-B that is made to back-off, then we have:
Task-A -> Mutex-2 -> Task-B (no further blocked_on)
and it would attempt to run Task-B. Or worse, it could directly
pick Task-B and run it, without ever getting into
find_proxy_task().
Now, here is a problem because Task-B might not be runnable on
the CPU it is currently on; and because !task_is_blocked() we
don't get into the proxy paths, so nobody is going to fix this
up.
Ideally we would have dequeued Task-B alongside of clearing
->blocked_on, but alas, [the lock ordering prevents us from
getting the task_rq_lock() and] spoils things."
Thus we need more than just a binary concept of the task being
blocked on a mutex or not.
So allow setting blocked_on to PROXY_WAKING as a special value
which specifies the task is no longer blocked, but needs to
be evaluated for return migration *before* it can be run.
This will then be used in a later patch to handle proxy
return-migration.
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260324191337.1841376-7-jstultz@google.com