While testing Prateek's throttle series, I noticed a panic issue when
coresched is enabled and bisected to this patch.
I fed the panic log and this patch to an agent and its analysis looks
correct to me(cpu56 and cpu57 are siblings in a VM):
cpu57 (holds core-wide lock)
pick_next_task() [core scheduling]
for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, 57):
i=57: pick_task(rq_57)
pick_task_fair(rq_57)
-> picks task A
rq_57->core_pick = task A
// task_rq(A) == rq_57
i=56: pick_task(rq_56)
pick_task_fair(rq_56)
cfs_rq->nr_queued == 0
goto idle
sched_balance_newidle(rq_56)
raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq_56)
// core-wide lock released
newidle_balance() pulls
task A: rq_57 -> rq_56
// task_rq(A) == rq_56 now
raw_spin_rq_lock(rq_56)
// core-wide lock re-acquired
return > 0
goto again
pick_task_fair(rq_56)
-> picks task A
rq_56->core_pick = task A
// first loop done
// rq_57->core_pick is still task A (set before lock release)
// but task_rq(A) == rq_56 now
next = rq_57->core_pick // = task A
put_prev_set_next_task(rq_57, prev, task A)
__set_next_task_fair(rq_57, task A)
hrtick_start_fair(rq_57, task A)
WARN_ON_ONCE(task_rq(task A) != rq_57)
// task_rq(A) == rq_56
IOW: by allowing pick_task_fair() to do newidle_balance and not returning
RETRY_TASK, it can end up selecting the same task on two CPUs. Restore the
previous state by never doing newidle when core scheduling is enabled.
Tested-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Aaron Lu" <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260603095108.GA1684319@bytedance.com
c095741713