On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:28:10PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 04fc161e4dbe..fc2dc86a2abe 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1043,6 +1043,57 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
uclamp_rq_dec_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
}
+static inline void
+uclamp_update_active(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
+{
+ struct rq_flags rf;
+ struct rq *rq;
+
+ /*
+ * Lock the task and the rq where the task is (or was) queued.
+ *
+ * We might lock the (previous) rq of a !RUNNABLE task, but that's the
+ * price to pay to safely serialize util_{min,max} updates with
+ * enqueues, dequeues and migration operations.
+ * This is the same locking schema used by __set_cpus_allowed_ptr().
+ */
+ rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
Since modifying cgroup parameters is priv only, this should be OK I
suppose. Priv can already DoS the system anyway.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ /*
+ * Setting the clamp bucket is serialized by task_rq_lock().
+ * If the task is not yet RUNNABLE and its task_struct is not
+ * affecting a valid clamp bucket, the next time it's enqueued,
+ * it will already see the updated clamp bucket value.
+ */
+ if (!p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
+ goto done;
+
+ uclamp_rq_dec_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
+ uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
+
+done:
I'm thinking that:
if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active) {
uclamp_rq_dec_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
}
was too obvious? ;-)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+
+ task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
+}