Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Introduce put_task_struct_atomic_sleep()

[Waiman Long]

On 4/25/23 07:43, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> The put_task_struct() function reduces a usage counter and invokes
> __put_task_struct() when the counter reaches zero.
>
> In the case of __put_task_struct(), it indirectly acquires a spinlock,
> which operates as a sleeping lock under the PREEMPT_RT configuration.
> As a result, invoking put_task_struct() within an atomic context is
> not feasible for real-time (RT) kernels.
>
> One practical example is a splat inside inactive_task_timer(), which is
> called in a interrupt context:
>
> CPU: 1 PID: 2848 Comm: life Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W ---------
> Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL388p Gen8, BIOS P70 07/15/2012
> Call Trace:
>   dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
>   mark_lock_irq.cold+0x33/0xba
>   ? stack_trace_save+0x4b/0x70
>   ? save_trace+0x55/0x150
>   mark_lock+0x1e7/0x400
>   mark_usage+0x11d/0x140
>   __lock_acquire+0x30d/0x930
>   lock_acquire.part.0+0x9c/0x210
>   ? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
>   ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x3f/0x70
>   ? trace_lock_acquire+0x38/0x140
>   ? lock_acquire+0x30/0x80
>   ? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
>   rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0
>   ? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
>   refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
>   ? inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
>   kmem_cache_free+0x357/0x560
>   inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
>   ? switched_from_dl+0x2d0/0x2d0
>   __run_hrtimer+0x8a/0x1a0
>   __hrtimer_run_queues+0x91/0x130
>   hrtimer_interrupt+0x10f/0x220
>   __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7b/0xd0
>   sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4f/0xd0
>   ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa/0x20
>   asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
> RIP: 0033:0x7fff196bf6f5
>
> To address this issue, this patch series introduces a new function
> called put_task_struct_atomic_safe(). When compiled with the
> PREEMPT_RT configuration, this function defers the call to
> __put_task_struct() to a process context.
>
> Additionally, the patch series rectifies known problematic call sites
> to ensure smooth functioning.
>
> Changelog
> =========
>
> v1:
> * Initial implementation fixing the splat.
>
> v2:
> * Isolate the logic in its own function.
> * Fix two more cases caught in review.
>
> v3:
> * Change __put_task_struct() to handle the issue internally.
>
> v4:
> * Explain why call_rcu() is safe to call from interrupt context.
>
> v5:
> * Explain why __put_task_struct() doesn't conflict with
>    put_task_sruct_rcu_user.
>
> v6:
> * As per Sebastian's review, revert back the implementation of v2
>    with a distinct function.
> * Add a check in put_task_struct() to warning when called from a
>    non-sleepable context.
> * Address more call sites.
>
> v7:
> * Fix typos.
> * Add an explanation why the new function doesn't conflict with
>    delayed_free_task().
>
> Wander Lairson Costa (3):
>    sched/core: warn on call put_task_struct in invalid context
>    sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe() function
>    treewide: replace put_task_struct() with the atomic safe version
>
>   include/linux/sched/task.h | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   kernel/events/core.c       |  6 ++---
>   kernel/fork.c              |  8 +++++++
>   kernel/locking/rtmutex.c   | 10 ++++----
>   kernel/sched/core.c        |  6 ++---
>   kernel/sched/deadline.c    | 16 ++++++-------
>   kernel/sched/rt.c          |  4 ++--
>   7 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

This patch series looks good to me.

Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>

I notice that __put_task_struct() invokes quite a bit of cleanup works 
from different subsystems. So it may burn quite a bit of cpu cycles to 
complete. This may not be something we want in an atomic context, maybe 
we should call call_rcu() irrespective of the PREEMPT_RT setting. 
Anyway, this can be a follow-up patch if we want to do that.

Cheers,
Longman