From cd9626e9ebc77edec33023fe95dab4b04ffc819d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:38:10 +0200 Subject: sched/fair: Fix external p->on_rq users Sean noted that ever since commit 152e11f6df29 ("sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue") KVM's preemption notifiers have started mis-classifying preemption vs blocking. Notably p->on_rq is no longer sufficient to determine if a task is runnable or blocked -- the aforementioned commit introduces tasks that remain on the runqueue even through they will not run again, and should be considered blocked for many cases. Add the task_is_runnable() helper to classify things and audit all external users of the p->on_rq state. Also add a few comments. Fixes: 152e11f6df29 ("sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue") Reported-by: Sean Christopherson Tested-by: Sean Christopherson Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241010091843.GK33184@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net --- kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/time') diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c index 753a184c7090..f203f000da1a 100644 --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c @@ -434,6 +434,12 @@ static void tick_nohz_kick_task(struct task_struct *tsk) * smp_mb__after_spin_lock() * tick_nohz_task_switch() * LOAD p->tick_dep_mask + * + * XXX given a task picks up the dependency on schedule(), should we + * only care about tasks that are currently on the CPU instead of all + * that are on the runqueue? + * + * That is, does this want to be: task_on_cpu() / task_curr()? */ if (!sched_task_on_rq(tsk)) return; -- cgit v1.2.3