linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: don't assign runtime for throttled 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: <0004fb54-cdee-2197-1cbf-6e2111d39ed9@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 18:34:13 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Liangyan <liangyan.peng@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com,
        xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: don't assign runtime for throttled cfs_rq

On 16/08/2019 18:19, Valentin Schneider wrote:
[...]
> Yeah it's probably pretty stupid. IIRC throttled cfs_rq means frozen
> rq_clock, so any subsequent call to update_curr() on a throttled cfs_rq
> should lead to an early bailout anyway due to delta_exec <= 0.
> 

Did some more tracing, seems like the issue is we can make
->runtime_remaining positive in assign_cfs_rq_runtime() but not mark the
cfs_rq as unthrottled.

So AFAICT we'd need something like this:

-----8<-----
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 1054d2cf6aaa..ffbb4dfc4b81 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4385,6 +4385,11 @@ static inline u64 cfs_rq_clock_task(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 	return rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - cfs_rq->throttled_clock_task_time;
 }
 
+static inline int cfs_rq_throttled(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
+{
+	return cfs_bandwidth_used() && cfs_rq->throttled;
+}
+
 /* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime */
 static int assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 {
@@ -4411,6 +4416,9 @@ static int assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 
 	cfs_rq->runtime_remaining += amount;
 
+	if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0 && cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
+		unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
+
 	return cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0;
 }
 
@@ -4439,11 +4447,6 @@ void account_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, u64 delta_exec)
 	__account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, delta_exec);
 }
 
-static inline int cfs_rq_throttled(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
-{
-	return cfs_bandwidth_used() && cfs_rq->throttled;
-}
-
 /* check whether cfs_rq, or any parent, is throttled */
 static inline int throttled_hierarchy(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 {
----->8-----

Does that make sense? If so we *may* want to add some ->runtime_remaining
wrappers (e.g. {add/remove}_runtime()) and have the check in there to
make sure it's not forgotten.