linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched/fair: hard lockup in sched_cfs_period

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20190312135746.GB24002@pauld.bos.csb>
Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:57:46 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     bsegall@...gle.com
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC]  sched/fair: hard lockup in sched_cfs_period_timer

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 04:25:36PM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:44:25AM -0700 bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
> > Letting it spin for 100ms and then only increasing by 6% seems extremely
> > generous. If we went this route I'd probably say "after looping N
> > times, set the period to time taken / N + X%" where N is like 8 or
> > something. I think I'd probably perfer something like this to the
> > previous "just abort and let it happen again next interrupt" one.
> 
> Okay. I'll try to spin something up that does this. It may be a little 
> trickier to keep the quota proportional to the new period. I think that's 
> important since we'll be changing the user's setting.
> 
> Do you mean to have it break when it hits N and recalculates the period or 
> reset the counter and keep going?
> 

Let me know what you think of the below. It's working nicely. I like your 
suggestion to limit it quickly based on number of loops and use that to 
scale up. I think it is best to break out and let it fire again if needed. 
The warning fires once, very occasionally twice, and then things are quiet.

If that looks reasonable I'll do some more testing and spin it up as a real 
patch submission. 

Cheers,
Phil
---

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 310d0637fe4b..54b30adfc89e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4859,19 +4859,51 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
 	return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
 }
 
+extern const u64 max_cfs_quota_period;
+int cfs_period_autotune_loop_limit   = 8;
+int cfs_period_autotune_cushion_pct  = 15; /* percentage added to period recalculation */
+
 static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_period_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
 {
 	struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b =
 		container_of(timer, struct cfs_bandwidth, period_timer);
+	s64 nsstart, nsnow, new_period;
 	int overrun;
 	int idle = 0;
+	int count = 0;
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
+	nsstart = ktime_to_ns(hrtimer_cb_get_time(timer));
 	for (;;) {
 		overrun = hrtimer_forward_now(timer, cfs_b->period);
 		if (!overrun)
 			break;
 
+		if (++count > cfs_period_autotune_loop_limit) {
+			ktime_t old_period = ktime_to_ns(cfs_b->period);
+
+			nsnow = ktime_to_ns(hrtimer_cb_get_time(timer));
+			new_period = (nsnow - nsstart)/cfs_period_autotune_loop_limit;
+
+			/*  Make sure new period will be larger than old. */
+			if (new_period < old_period) {
+				new_period = old_period;
+			}
+			new_period += (new_period *  cfs_period_autotune_cushion_pct) / 100;
+
+			if (new_period >  max_cfs_quota_period)
+				new_period = max_cfs_quota_period;
+
+			cfs_b->period = ns_to_ktime(new_period);
+			cfs_b->quota += (cfs_b->quota * ((new_period - old_period) * 100)/old_period)/100;
+			pr_warn_ratelimited(
+				"cfs_period_timer[cpu%d]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us %lld, cfs_quota_us = %lld)\n",
+				smp_processor_id(), cfs_b->period/NSEC_PER_USEC, cfs_b->quota/NSEC_PER_USEC);
+
+			idle = 0;
+			break;
+		}
+
 		idle = do_sched_cfs_period_timer(cfs_b, overrun);
 	}
 	if (idle)


--