summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/debian/patches-rt/0015-sched-lockdep-Annotate-pi_lock-recursion.patch
blob: db126bb824b5102cf4b01934af744613d1c7c058 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
From 08be58930a1822de1d0df49597950a0a0f43d407 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:12:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 015/323] sched, lockdep: Annotate ->pi_lock recursion
Origin: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/5.10/older/patches-5.10.215-rt107.tar.xz

There's a valid ->pi_lock recursion issue where the actual PI code
tries to wake up the stop task. Make lockdep aware so it doesn't
complain about this.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 2517a003295b9..abbf01f77a76f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2670,6 +2670,7 @@ int select_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flags, int wake_flags)
 
 void sched_set_stop_task(int cpu, struct task_struct *stop)
 {
+	static struct lock_class_key stop_pi_lock;
 	struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 };
 	struct task_struct *old_stop = cpu_rq(cpu)->stop;
 
@@ -2685,6 +2686,20 @@ void sched_set_stop_task(int cpu, struct task_struct *stop)
 		sched_setscheduler_nocheck(stop, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
 
 		stop->sched_class = &stop_sched_class;
+
+		/*
+		 * The PI code calls rt_mutex_setprio() with ->pi_lock held to
+		 * adjust the effective priority of a task. As a result,
+		 * rt_mutex_setprio() can trigger (RT) balancing operations,
+		 * which can then trigger wakeups of the stop thread to push
+		 * around the current task.
+		 *
+		 * The stop task itself will never be part of the PI-chain, it
+		 * never blocks, therefore that ->pi_lock recursion is safe.
+		 * Tell lockdep about this by placing the stop->pi_lock in its
+		 * own class.
+		 */
+		lockdep_set_class(&stop->pi_lock, &stop_pi_lock);
 	}
 
 	cpu_rq(cpu)->stop = stop;
-- 
2.44.0