On 05.10.2020 15:36, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> Lockdep complains that after rq_repin_lock() the lock wasn't unpinned
> before rq->lock release.
>
> [ cut here ]
> releasing a pinned lock
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 24 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4271
> lock_release+0x939/0xee0
> Call Trace:
> _raw_spin_unlock+0x1c/0x30
> load_balance+0x1472/0x2e30
> pick_next_task_fair+0x62c/0x2300
> __schedule+0x481/0x1600
> schedule+0xbf/0x240
> worker_thread+0x1d5/0xb50
> kthread+0x30e/0x3d0
> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>
> Add rq_unpin_lock(); call to fix this. Also for consistency use 'busiest'
> instead of 'env.src_rq' which is the same.
>
> https://jira.sw.ru/browse/PSBM-120800
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index fc87dee4fd0e..23a2f2452474 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9178,9 +9178,10 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
> *this_rq,
> env.loop = 0;
> local_irq_save(rf.flags);
> double_rq_lock(env.dst_rq, busiest);
> - rq_repin_lock(env.src_rq, &rf);
> + rq_repin_lock(busiest, &rf);
> update_rq_clock(env.dst_rq);
> cur_ld_moved = ld_moved = move_task_groups(&env);
> + rq_unpin_lock(busiest, &rf);
> double_rq_unlock(env.dst_rq, busiest);
> local_irq_restore(rf.flags);
> }
>
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
