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  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:	Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:57:06 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix b5d9d734 blunder in task_new_fair()

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 19:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 19:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 18:54 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 18:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 18:07 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > >       if (p->sched_class->task_new) {
> > > > > >               /* can detect migration through: task_cpu(p) != smp_processor_id() */
> > > > > 
> > > > > What if the parent was migrated before we got here?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, the only case it really matters for is the child_runs_first crap,
> > > > which is basically broken on SMP anyway, so I don't think we care too
> > > > much if we race here.
> > > > 
> > > > Unless I missed some detail that is ;-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Also, we're running all this from the parent context, and we have
> > > preemption disabled, we're not going anywhere.
> > 
> > In sched_fork() and wake_up_new_process(), but in between?
> 
> Hmm, right, back to the previous argument then ;-)

Ok, how about this.  Neither task is going anywhere.  Don't worry about
what all may or may not have happened in between, just copy the parent's
vruntime as it sits NOW (wakeup time), add in any unaccounted parent
vruntime, and redo the child's offset.  The child's runqueue has just
been updated, the only vruntime missing, if any, is that sitting in the
parent.


sched: fix sched_fair.c::task_new_fair vruntime bug.

b5d9d734 fixed the problem of a forking task's child gaining vruntime..
IFF the child/parent shared a runqueue.  In the other case, it broke
fairness all to pieces by setting the child's vruntime to whatever task
happened to be current on the child's runqueue at wakeup time.  Fix this
by selecting a runqueue for the child at wakeup time, copying the parent's
vruntime, adding any unaccounted vruntime, and redoing cross cpu offset.

Also, since setting scheduling policy requires the tasklist lock, move
sched_fork() under the tasklist lock in copy_process();

Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>

---
 kernel/fork.c       |    9 ++++++---
 kernel/sched.c      |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 kernel/sched_fair.c |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1925,20 +1925,37 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq
  * Share the fairness runtime between parent and child, thus the
  * total amount of pressure for CPU stays equal - new tasks
  * get a chance to run but frequent forkers are not allowed to
- * monopolize the CPU. Note: the parent runqueue is locked,
- * the child is not running yet.
+ * monopolize the CPU. Note: the child's runqueue is locked, the
+ * child is not yet running, and the parent is not preemptible.
  */
 static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 {
 	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
 	struct sched_entity *se = &p->se, *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
+	struct sched_entity *pse = &current->se;
 	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
-	sched_info_queued(p);
-
 	update_curr(cfs_rq);
-	if (curr)
-		se->vruntime = curr->vruntime;
+
+	if (is_same_group(se, pse)) {
+		se->vruntime = pse->vruntime;
+
+		/*
+		 * If we're not sharing a runqueue, redo the child's vruntime
+		 * offset after accounting for any yet to be booked vruntime.
+		 */
+		if (this_cpu != task_cpu(p)) {
+			struct cfs_rq *old_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
+			u64 now = cpu_rq(this_cpu)->clock;
+			unsigned long delta_exec = now - pse->exec_start;
+
+			delta_exec = calc_delta_fair(delta_exec, se);
+			se->vruntime += delta_exec;
+			se->vruntime -= old_cfs_rq->min_vruntime -
+						cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
+		}
+	}
+
 	place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 1);
 
 	/* 'curr' will be NULL if the child belongs to a different group */
@@ -1953,6 +1970,8 @@ static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq,
 	}
 
 	enqueue_task_fair(rq, p, 0);
+
+	sched_info_queued(p);
 }
 
 /*
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2558,7 +2558,6 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_str
 void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, int clone_flags)
 {
 	int cpu = get_cpu();
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	__sched_fork(p);
 
@@ -2592,13 +2591,7 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i
 	if (!rt_prio(p->prio))
 		p->sched_class = &fair_sched_class;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
-#endif
-	local_irq_save(flags);
-	update_rq_clock(cpu_rq(cpu));
-	set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
-	local_irq_restore(flags);
+	__set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
 	if (likely(sched_info_on()))
@@ -2625,14 +2618,31 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i
  */
 void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long clone_flags)
 {
+	int cpu = get_cpu();
 	unsigned long flags;
-	struct rq *rq;
+	struct task_struct *parent = current;
+	struct rq *rq, *orig_rq;
 
-	rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
+	smp_wmb();
+	rq = orig_rq = task_rq_lock(parent, &flags);
 	BUG_ON(p->state != TASK_RUNNING);
-	update_rq_clock(rq);
+	update_rq_clock(orig_rq);
 
-	if (!p->sched_class->task_new || !current->se.on_rq) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+	p->state = TASK_WAKING;
+	__task_rq_unlock(rq);
+	cpu = p->sched_class->select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
+	rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+	if (rq != orig_rq) {
+		update_rq_clock(rq);
+		set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
+	}
+	rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
+	WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
+	p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+#endif
+
+	if (!p->sched_class->task_new || !parent->se.on_rq) {
 		activate_task(rq, p, 0);
 	} else {
 		/*
@@ -2649,6 +2659,7 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct
 		p->sched_class->task_wake_up(rq, p);
 #endif
 	task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+	put_cpu();
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/fork.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/fork.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1125,9 +1125,6 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
 
 	p->stack_start = stack_start;
 
-	/* Perform scheduler related setup. Assign this task to a CPU. */
-	sched_fork(p, clone_flags);
-
 	retval = perf_event_init_task(p);
 	if (retval)
 		goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
@@ -1230,6 +1227,12 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
 	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 
 	/*
+	 * Perform scheduler related setup.  Final CPU assignment will
+	 * be performed at wakeup time.
+	 */
+	sched_fork(p, clone_flags);
+
+	/*
 	 * The task hasn't been attached yet, so its cpus_allowed mask will
 	 * not be changed, nor will its assigned CPU.
 	 *


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists