commit 0782e63bc6 upstream.
Ronny reported that the following scenario is not handled correctly:
T1 (prio = 10)
lock(rtmutex);
T2 (prio = 20)
lock(rtmutex)
boost T1
T1 (prio = 20)
sys_set_scheduler(prio = 30)
T1 prio = 30
....
sys_set_scheduler(prio = 10)
T1 prio = 30
The last step is wrong as T1 should now be back at prio 20.
Commit c365c292d0 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
only handles the case where a boosted tasks tries to lower its
priority.
Fix it by taking the new effective priority into account for the
decision whether a change of the priority is required.
Reported-by: Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Fixes: c365c292d0 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051806060.4225@nanos
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
[ luis: backported to 3.16: adjusted context ]
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com>
daf639f6ed