linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sync expires_seq in distribute_cfs

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: <0939a9c3-e9c0-ae8a-3f56-0dde1ab2fc8e@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:24:04 +0800
From:   Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sync expires_seq in distribute_cfs_runtime()

On 8/1/18 4:55 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:13 AM <bsegall@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/31/18 1:55 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:29 PM Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Cong,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/18 8:24 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>>>> Each time we sync cfs_rq->runtime_expires with cfs_b->runtime_expires,
>>>>>> we should sync its ->expires_seq too. However it is missing
>>>>>> for distribute_cfs_runtime(), especially the slack timer call path.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it's a problem, as expires_seq will get synced in
>>>>> assign_cfs_rq_runtime().
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but there is a small window during which they are not synced.
>>>> Why do you want to wait until the next assign_cfs_rq_runtime() when
>>>> you already know runtime_expires is synced?
>>>>
>>>> Also, expire_cfs_rq_runtime() is called before assign_cfs_rq_runtime()
>>>> inside __account_cfs_rq_runtime(), which means the check of
>>>> cfs_rq->expires_seq is not accurate for unthrottling case if the clock
>>>> drift happens soon enough?
>>>>
>>>
>>> expire_cfs_rq_runtime():
>>>     if (cfs_rq->expires_seq == cfs_b->expires_seq) {
>>>         /* extend local deadline, drift is bounded above by 2 ticks */
>>>         cfs_rq->runtime_expires += TICK_NSEC;
>>>     } else {
>>>         /* global deadline is ahead, expiration has passed */
>>>         cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
>>>     }
>>>
>>> So if clock drift happens soon, then expires_seq decides the correct
>>> thing we should do: if cfs_b->expires_seq advanced, then clear the stale
>>> cfs_rq->runtime_remaining from the slack timer of the past period, then
>>> assign_cfs_rq_runtime() will refresh them afterwards, otherwise it is a
>>> real clock drift. I am still not getting where the race is?
> 
> But expires_seq is supposed to be the same here, after
> distribute_cfs_runtime(), therefore runtime_remaining is not supposed
> to be cleared.
> 
> Which part do I misunderstand? expires_seq should not be same here?
> Or you are saying a wrongly clear of runtime_remaning is fine?
> 

Let's see the unthrottle cases.
1. for the periodic timer
distribute_cfs_runtime updates the throttled cfs_rq->runtime_expires to
be a new value, so expire_cfs_rq_runtime does nothing because of:
  rq_clock(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - cfs_rq->runtime_expires < 0

Afterwards assign_cfs_rq_runtime() will sync its expires_seq.

2. for the slack timer
the two expires_seq should be the same, so if clock drift happens soon,
expire_cfs_rq_runtime regards it as true clock drift:
  cfs_rq->runtime_expires += TICK_NSEC
If it happens that global expires_seq advances, it also doesn't matter,
expire_cfs_rq_runtime will clear the stale expire_cfs_rq_runtime as
expected.

> 
>>
>> Nothing /important/ goes wrong because distribute_cfs_runtime only fills
>> runtime_remaining up to 1, not a real amount.
> 
> No, runtime_remaining is updated right before expire_cfs_rq_runtime():
> 
> static void __account_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, u64 delta_exec)
> {
>         /* dock delta_exec before expiring quota (as it could span periods) */
>         cfs_rq->runtime_remaining -= delta_exec;
>         expire_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq);
> 
> so almost certainly it can't be 1.

I think Ben means it firstly gets a distributtion of 1 to run after
unthrottling, soon it will have a negative runtime_remaining, and go
to assign_cfs_rq_runtime().

Thanks,
Xunlei

> 
> Which means the following check could be passed:
> 
>  4655         if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining < 0)
>  4656                 return;
> 
> therefore we are reaching the clock drift logic code inside
> expire_cfs_rq_runtime()
> where expires_seq is supposed to be same as they should be sync'ed.
> Therefore without patch, we wrongly clear the runtime_remainng?
> 
> Thanks.
>