linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched: Stop nohz stats when decayed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:02:59 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@...s.arm.com>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched: Stop nohz stats when decayed

On 16 February 2018 at 13:53, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
> On 02/14/2018 03:26 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Stopped the periodic update of blocked load when all idle CPUs have fully
>> decayed. We introduce a new nohz.has_blocked that reflect if some idle
>> CPUs has blocked load that have to be periodiccally updated. nohz.has_blocked
>> is set everytime that a Idle CPU can have blocked load and it is then clear
>> when no more blocked load has been detected during an update. We don't need
>> atomic operation but only to make cure of the right ordering when updating
>> nohz.idle_cpus_mask and nohz.has_blocked.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c  | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  kernel/sched/sched.h |   1 +
>>  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 7af1fa9..5a6835e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> -static void update_nohz_stats(struct rq *rq)
>> +static bool update_nohz_stats(struct rq *rq)
>>  {
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
>>       unsigned int cpu = rq->cpu;
>>
>> +     if (!rq->has_blocked_load)
>> +             return false;
>> +
>>       if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask))
>> -             return;
>> +             return false;
>>
>>       if (!time_after(jiffies, rq->last_blocked_load_update_tick))
>> -             return;
>> +             return true;
>>
>>       update_blocked_averages(cpu);
>> +
>> +     return rq->has_blocked_load;
>> +#else
>> +     return false;
>>  #endif
>>  }
>>
>
> (Wrongly thought that this bit was in a different patch, comment should have
> been squashed in previous reply...)
>
> I've been thinking about this, and it's a messy one if we want to
> skip CPUs in idle_balance() / clear the nohz.has_blocked_flag.
>
> AFAICT, the rq->has_blocked_load flag can be wrongly cleared: if we're
> calling update_nohz_stats() for CPU A, but CPU A got out/in of
> idle really quickly in that same timeframe, I'm not sure you can guarantee
> the clearing of rq->has_blocked_load done in update_blocked_averages() will
> always end up in memory before the setting of the flag in
> nohz_balance_enter_idle().

Not sure it's a problem in this case because the clear done in
update_blocked_averages() only happens if there is no load on the rq
and new load can't be added in the mean time

>
> I was going to say we don't have this problem in _nohz_idle_balance() but
> actually I think we do. We have the checking of nohz.idle_cpus_mask after the
> smp_mb(), which makes sure the clear of nohz.has_blocked will never
> overwrite the set in nohz_balance_enter_idle(), but it doesn't
> guarantee the same for the rq flag. So we can have nohz CPUs with blocked
> load but with rq->has_blocked_load set to false. Which isn't a problem now

I don't think that we can have this case. Or at least I can't find a
sequence leading to this state.

Have you got a particular sequence in mind ?

> but it is if we want to use the flag to skip CPUs.
>
> Am I correct or am I going crazy ? There's a comment about this in
> nohz_balance_enter_idle() but I'm confused now:
>
>         /*
>          * Can be set safely without rq->lock held
>          * If a clear happens, it will have evaluated last additions because
>          * rq->lock is held during the check and the clear
>          */
>         rq->has_blocked_load = 1;