KOSAKI Motohiro noticed the following race:
> CPU0 CPU1
> --------------------------------------------------------
> deactivate_task()
> task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> activate_task()
> rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>
> schedule()
> deactivate_task()
> rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
>
Kosaki-San's scenario is possible when CPU0 runs
__sched_setscheduler() against CPU1's current @task.
__sched_setscheduler() does a dequeue/enqueue in order to move
the task to its new queue (position) to reflect the newly provided
scheduling parameters. However it should be completely invariant to
nr_uninterruptible accounting, sched_setscheduler() doesn't affect
readyness to run, merely policy on when to run.
So convert the inappropriate activate/deactivate_task usage to
enqueue/dequeue_task, which avoids the nr_uninterruptible accounting.
Also convert the two other sites: __migrate_task() and
normalize_task() that still use activate/deactivate_task. These sites
aren't really a problem since __migrate_task() will only be called on
non-running task (and therefore are immume to the described problem)
and normalize_task() isn't ever used on regular systems.
Also remove the comments from activate/deactivate_task since they're
misleading at best.
Reported-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1327486224.2614.45.camel@laptop
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
4ca9b72b71