+15
−6
+20
−20
+12
−3
+8
−1
+19
−18
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
Commit 67692435 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path") inadvertly introduced a race because it changed a previously unexplored dependency between dropping the rq->lock and sched_class::put_prev_task(). The comments about dropping rq->lock, in for example newidle_balance(), only mentions the task being current and ->on_cpu being set. But when we look at the 'change' pattern (in for example sched_setnuma()): queued = task_on_rq_queued(p); /* p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED */ running = task_current(rq, p); /* rq->curr == p */ if (queued) dequeue_task(...); if (running) put_prev_task(...); /* change task properties */ if (queued) enqueue_task(...); if (running) set_next_task(...); It becomes obvious that if we do this after put_prev_task() has already been called on @p, things go sideways. This is exactly what the commit in question allows to happen when it does: prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, rf); if (!rq->nr_running) newidle_balance(rq, rf); The newidle_balance() call will drop rq->lock after we've called put_prev_task() and that allows the above 'change' pattern to interleave and mess up the state. Furthermore, it turns out we lost the RT-pull when we put the last DL task. Fix both problems by extracting the balancing from put_prev_task() and doing a multi-class balance() pass before put_prev_task(). Fixes: 67692435 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path") Reported-by:Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> Signed-off-by:
Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by:
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> Tested-by:
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE