linux-kernel - Re: 5.6-rc3: WARNING: CPU: 48 PID: 17435 at kernel/sched/fair.c:380 enqueue_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]

Message-Id: <ad0f263a-6837-e793-5761-fda3264fd8ad@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 08:37:00 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.6-rc3: WARNING: CPU: 48 PID: 17435 at kernel/sched/fair.c:380
 enqueue_task_fair+0x328/0x440



On 02.03.20 19:17, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 02.03.20 12:16, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28.02.20 17:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le vendredi 28 févr. 2020 à 16:42:27 (+0100), Christian Borntraeger a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28.02.20 16:37, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 16:08, Christian Borntraeger
>>>>> <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also happened with 5.4:
>>>>>> Seems that I just happen to have an interesting test workload/system size interaction
>>>>>> on a newly installed system that triggers this.
>>>>>
>>>>> you will probably go back to 5.1 which is the version where we put
>>>>> back the deletion of unused cfs_rq from the list which can trigger the
>>>>> warning:
>>>>> commit 039ae8bcf7a5 : (Fix O(nr_cgroups) in the load balancing path)
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICT, we haven't changed this since
>>>>
>>>> So you do know what is the problem? If not is there any debug option or
>>>> patch that I could apply to give you more information?
>>>
>>> No I don't know what is happening. Your test probably goes through an unexpected path
>>>
>>> Would it be difficult for me to reproduce your test env ?
>>
>> Not sure. Its a 32CPU (SMT2 -> 64) host. I have about 10 KVM guests running doing different
>> things.
>>
>>>
>>> There is an optimization in the code which could generate problem if assumption is not
>>> true. Could you try the patch below ?
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index 3c8a379c357e..beb773c23e7d 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -4035,8 +4035,8 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
>>>  		__enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
>>>  	se->on_rq = 1;
>>>  
>>> +	list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>>>  	if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1) {
>>> -		list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>>>  		check_enqueue_throttle(cfs_rq);
>>>  	}
>>>  }
>>
>> Now running for 3 hours. I have not seen the issue yet. I can tell tomorrow if this fixes 
>> the issue.
> 
> 
> Still running fine. I can tell for sure tomorrow, but I have the impression that this makes the
> WARN_ON go away.

So I guess this change "fixed" the issue. If you want me to test additional patches, let me know.