sched/locking: Add special p->blocked_on==PROXY_WAKING value for proxy return-migration

As we add functionality to proxy execution, we may migrate a
donor task to a runqueue where it can't run due to cpu affinity.
Thus, we must be careful to ensure we return-migrate the task
back to a cpu in its cpumask when it becomes unblocked.

Peter helpfully provided the following example with pictures:
"Suppose we have a ww_mutex cycle:

                  ,-+-* Mutex-1 <-.
        Task-A ---' |             | ,-- Task-B
                    `-> Mutex-2 *-+-'

Where Task-A holds Mutex-1 and tries to acquire Mutex-2, and
where Task-B holds Mutex-2 and tries to acquire Mutex-1.

Then the blocked_on->owner chain will go in circles.

        Task-A  -> Mutex-2
          ^          |
          |          v
        Mutex-1 <- Task-B

We need two things:

 - find_proxy_task() to stop iterating the circle;

 - the woken task to 'unblock' and run, such that it can
   back-off and re-try the transaction.

Now, the current code [without this patch] does:
        __clear_task_blocked_on();
        wake_q_add();

And surely clearing ->blocked_on is sufficient to break the
cycle.

Suppose it is Task-B that is made to back-off, then we have:

  Task-A -> Mutex-2 -> Task-B (no further blocked_on)

and it would attempt to run Task-B. Or worse, it could directly
pick Task-B and run it, without ever getting into
find_proxy_task().

Now, here is a problem because Task-B might not be runnable on
the CPU it is currently on; and because !task_is_blocked() we
don't get into the proxy paths, so nobody is going to fix this
up.

Ideally we would have dequeued Task-B alongside of clearing
->blocked_on, but alas, [the lock ordering prevents us from
getting the task_rq_lock() and] spoils things."

Thus we need more than just a binary concept of the task being
blocked on a mutex or not.

So allow setting blocked_on to PROXY_WAKING as a special value
which specifies the task is no longer blocked, but needs to
be evaluated for return migration *before* it can be run.

This will then be used in a later patch to handle proxy
return-migration.

Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260324191337.1841376-7-jstultz@google.com

kernel/locking/mutex.c

@@ -983,7 +983,7 @@ static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, unsigne
 		next = waiter->task;
 
 		debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
-		clear_task_blocked_on(next, lock);
+		set_task_blocked_on_waking(next, lock);
 		wake_q_add(&wake_q, next);
 	}
 

kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h

@@ -285,11 +285,11 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
 		debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
 #endif
 		/*
-		 * When waking up the task to die, be sure to clear the
-		 * blocked_on pointer. Otherwise we can see circular
-		 * blocked_on relationships that can't resolve.
+		 * When waking up the task to die, be sure to set the
+		 * blocked_on to PROXY_WAKING. Otherwise we can see
+		 * circular blocked_on relationships that can't resolve.
 		 */
-		clear_task_blocked_on(waiter->task, lock);
+		set_task_blocked_on_waking(waiter->task, lock);
 		wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
 	}
 
@@ -339,15 +339,15 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
 		 */
 		if (owner != current) {
 			/*
-			 * When waking up the task to wound, be sure to clear the
-			 * blocked_on pointer. Otherwise we can see circular
-			 * blocked_on relationships that can't resolve.
+			 * When waking up the task to wound, be sure to set the
+			 * blocked_on to PROXY_WAKING. Otherwise we can see
+			 * circular blocked_on relationships that can't resolve.
 			 *
 			 * NOTE: We pass NULL here instead of lock, because we
 			 * are waking the mutex owner, who may be currently
 			 * blocked on a different mutex.
 			 */
-			clear_task_blocked_on(owner, NULL);
+			set_task_blocked_on_waking(owner, NULL);
 			wake_q_add(wake_q, owner);
 		}
 		return true;