Re: [PATCH v4] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling context

[Wander Lairson Costa]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 10:09 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon,  6 Feb 2023 10:04:47 -0300 Wander Lairson Costa <wander@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
> > locks. Therefore, it can't be cala from a non-preemptible context.
>
> Well that's regrettable. Especially if non-preempt kernels don't do
> this.
>
> Why does PREEMPT_RT do this and can it be fixed?
>

Under PREEMPT_RT, spin_lock becomes a wrapper around rtmutex, which is
a sleeping lock. This is necessary because of the deterministic
scheduling requirements of the RT kernel. Most of the places that run
in atomic context in the stock kernel, become process context in the
RT kernel, so the change spin_lock -> rtmutex is safe. However, there
are always exceptions.

In this particular case, __put_task_struct calls kcache_mem_free,
which refill_obj_stock. refill_obj_stock acquires a local_lock, that
is implemented using a spin_lock.

> If it cannot be fixed then we should have a might_sleep() in
> __put_task_struct() for all kernel configurations, along with an
> apologetic comment explaining why.
>

This patch is supposed to be the fix.