linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: Add workaround for idle/iowait decreasing problem.

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]
Message-ID: <51D2ADCC.1090807@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Tue, 02 Jul 2013 19:39:08 +0900
From:	Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Add workaround for idle/iowait decreasing problem.

On 2013年07月02日 12:56, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao wrote:
> Hi Frederic,
>
> I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond; I got sidetracked for
> a while. Comments follow below.
>
> On 2013/04/28 09:49, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 09:45:23PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> CONFIG_NO_HZ=y can cause idle/iowait values to decrease.
> [...]
>> It's not clear in the changelog why you see non-monotonic idle/iowait 
>> values.
>>
>> Looking at the previous patch from Fernando, it seems that's because 
>> we can
>> race with concurrent updates from the CPU target when it wakes up 
>> from idle?
>> (could be updated by drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c as well).
>>
>> If so the bug has another symptom: we may also report a wrong 
>> iowait/idle time
>> by accounting the last idle time twice.
>>
>> In this case we should fix the bug from the source, for example we 
>> can force
>> the given ordering:
>>
>> = Write side =                          = Read side =
>>
>> // tick_nohz_start_idle()
>> write_seqcount_begin(ts->seq)
>> ts->idle_entrytime = now
>> ts->idle_active = 1
>> write_seqcount_end(ts->seq)
>>
>> // tick_nohz_stop_idle()
>> write_seqcount_begin(ts->seq)
>> ts->iowait_sleeptime += now - ts->idle_entrytime
>> t->idle_active = 0
>> write_seqcount_end(ts->seq)
>>
>>                                          // get_cpu_iowait_time_us()
>>                                          do {
>>                                              seq = 
>> read_seqcount_begin(ts->seq)
>>                                              if (t->idle_active) {
>>                                                  time = now - 
>> ts->idle_entrytime
>>                                                  time += 
>> ts->iowait_sleeptime
>>                                              } else {
>>                                                  time = 
>> ts->iowait_sleeptime
>>                                              }
>>                                          } while 
>> (read_seqcount_retry(ts->seq, seq));
>>
>> Right? seqcount should be enough to make sure we are getting a 
>> consistent result.
>> I doubt we need harder locking.
>
> I tried that and it doesn't suffice. The problem that causes the most
> serious skews is related to the CPU scheduler: the per-run queue
> counter nr_iowait can be updated not only from the CPU it belongs
> to but also from any other CPU if tasks are migrated out while
> waiting on I/O.
>
> The race looks like this:
>
> CPU0                            CPU1
>                                 [ CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 0 ]
>                                 Task foo: io_schedule()
>                                             schedule()
>                                 [ CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 1) ]
>                                 Task foo migrated to CPU0
>                                 Goes to sleep
>
> // get_cpu_iowait_time_us(1, NULL)
> [ CPU1_ts->idle_active == 1, CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 1 ]
> [ CPU1_ts->iowait_sleeptime = 4, CPU1_ts->idle_entrytime = 3 ]
> now = 5
> delta = 5 - 3 = 2
> iowait = 4 + 2 = 6
>
> Task foo wakes up
> [ CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 0 ]
>
>                                 CPU1 comes out of sleep state
>                                 tick_nohz_stop_idle()
>                                   update_ts_time_stats()
>                                     [ CPU1_ts->idle_active == 1, 
> CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 0         ]
>                                     [ CPU1_ts->iowait_sleeptime = 4, 
> CPU1_ts->idle_entrytime = 3 ]
>                                     now = 6
>                                     delta = 6 - 3 = 3
>                                     (CPU1_ts->iowait_sleeptime is not 
> updated)
>                                     CPU1_ts->idle_entrytime = now = 6
>                                   CPU1_ts->idle_active = 0
>
> // get_cpu_iowait_time_us(1, NULL)
> [ CPU1_ts->idle_active == 0, CPU1_rq->nr_iowait == 0 ]
> [ CPU1_ts->iowait_sleeptime = 4, CPU1_ts->idle_entrytime = 6 ]
> iowait = CPU1_ts->iowait_sleeptime = 4
> (iowait decreased from 6 to 4)

A possible solution to the races above would be to add
a per-cpu variable such ->iowait_sleeptime_user which
shadows ->iowait_sleeptime but is maintained in
get_cpu_iowait_time_us() and kept monotonic,
the former being the one we would export to user
space.

Another approach would be updating ->nr_iowait
of the source and destination CPUs during task
migration, but this may be overkill.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Fernando
--
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/