linux-kernel - Re: clock drift in set_task

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:	Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:47:01 +0530
From:	Jack Daniel <wanders.thirst@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: clock drift in set_task_cpu()

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 17:10 +0530, Jack Daniel wrote:
>> On a Xeon 55xx with 8 CPU's, I found out the new_rq->clock value is
>> sometimes larger than old_rq->clock and so clock_offset tends to warp
>> around leading to incorrect values.
>
> What values get incorrect, do you observe vruntime funnies or only the
> schedstat values?

Just the schedstat values, did not observe anything wrong with vruntime.

>
>>  You have very correctly noted in
>> the commit header that all functions that access set_task_cpu() must
>> do so after a call to sched_clock_remote(), in this case the function
>> is sched_fork(). I validated by adding update_rq_clock(old_rq); into
>> set_task_cpu() and that seems to fix the issue.
>
> Ah, so the problem is that task_fork_fair() does the task placement
> without updated rq clocks? In which case I think we should at least do
> an update_rq_clock(rq) in there (see the below patch).

Yes, this is indeed the problem and your patch seems to fix the issue.

>
>> But I noticed that
>> since CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is already set, if
>> (sched_clock_stable)  in sched_clock_cpu() will yield to true and the
>> flow never gets to sched_clock_remote() or sched_clock_local().
>
> sched_clock_stable being true implies the clock is stable across cores
> and thus it shouldn't matter. Or are you saying you're seeing it being
> set and still have issues?
>

Please ignore these comments, initial debugging set me on the wrong
foot, to suggest that TSC is unstable.

> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 9910e1b..f816e74 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -3751,6 +3751,8 @@ static void task_fork_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>
>        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
>
> +       update_rq_clock(rq);

As you rightly pointed out above, updating the clocks in
task_fork_fair() will rightly fix the issue. Can get rid of rest of
the update_rq_clock() functions as they (like you said), are expensive
and I tested commenting them out.

Thanks,
Jack
--
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/