[PATCH 7.1 022/271] selftests/sched_ext: Handle sleeping task affinity changes in numa test

Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.patches,org.kernel.vger.stable
Message-ID <[email protected]>
7.1-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Kuba Piecuch <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit d4a00d61a5c2c24973175ace5368d1f6acf9bb0a ]

When a sleeping task's affinity is changed, task_cpu(p) can be outside
of p->cpus_ptr until after select_task_rq() selects a new runqueue for
the task during wakeup.

Thus, the task's NUMA node determined by numa_select_cpu() can be
completely outside of the task's cpumask, leading to
scx_pick_{idle,any}_cpu_node() failing to find an eligible CPU and
returning -EBUSY. This leads to the numa.bpf.c scheduler abnormally
exiting with the following message in dmesg:

sched_ext: numa: invalid CPU -16
   scx_bpf_cpu_node+0x120/0x190
   bpf_prog_0a34b8e0f515771f_numa_select_cpu+0x108/0x14e
   bpf__sched_ext_ops_select_cpu+0x4f/0xb4
   select_task_rq_scx+0xb0/0x210
   select_task_rq+0xa0/0xd0
   __try_to_wake_up+0x196/0x650
   complete_all+0x76/0x100
   migration_cpu_stop+0x22b/0x300
   cpu_stopper_thread+0xc1/0x180
   smpboot_thread_fn+0x16b/0x230
   kthread+0x2d7/0x350
   ret_from_fork+0x1c2/0x350
   ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

Make numa_select_cpu() robust against this case by returning @prev_cpu
if no CPU could be found in the selected NUMA node _and_ we have reason
to believe that the task's affinity was changed while it was sleeping.

Fixes: 5ae5161820e5 ("selftests/sched_ext: Add NUMA-aware scheduler test")
Signed-off-by: Kuba Piecuch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/numa.bpf.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/numa.bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/numa.bpf.c
index 78cc49a7f9a67..6b4515c28aa0b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/numa.bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/numa.bpf.c
@@ -34,7 +34,8 @@ static bool is_cpu_idle(s32 cpu, int node)
 s32 BPF_STRUCT_OPS(numa_select_cpu,
 		   struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu, u64 wake_flags)
 {
-	int node = __COMPAT_scx_bpf_cpu_node(scx_bpf_task_cpu(p));
+	s32 task_cpu = scx_bpf_task_cpu(p);
+	int node = __COMPAT_scx_bpf_cpu_node(task_cpu);
 	s32 cpu;
 
 	/*
@@ -48,6 +49,16 @@ s32 BPF_STRUCT_OPS(numa_select_cpu,
 		cpu = __COMPAT_scx_bpf_pick_any_cpu_node(p->cpus_ptr, node,
 						__COMPAT_SCX_PICK_IDLE_IN_NODE);
 
+	/*
+	 * @task_cpu may be outside of p->cpus_ptr if @p's affinity
+	 * changed while it was sleeping. This means it's possible for
+	 * p->cpus_ptr to not include any CPUs from @node.
+	 * If we failed to find a cpu in @node, check if @task_cpu
+	 * is outside of p->cpus_ptr and just return @prev_cpu if it is.
+	 */
+	if (cpu < 0 && !bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
+		return prev_cpu;
+
 	if (is_cpu_idle(cpu, node))
 		scx_bpf_error("CPU %d should be marked as busy", cpu);
 
-- 
2.53.0
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.