linux-kernel - [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 19/46] sched: Avoid scale real weight down to zero

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: <20200410034909.8922-19-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu,  9 Apr 2020 23:48:42 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 19/46] sched: Avoid scale real weight down to zero

From: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>

[ Upstream commit 26cf52229efc87e2effa9d788f9b33c40fb3358a ]

During our testing, we found a case that shares no longer
working correctly, the cgroup topology is like:

  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/A		(shares=102400)
  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/A/B	(shares=2)
  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/A/B/C	(shares=1024)

  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/D		(shares=1024)
  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/D/E	(shares=1024)
  /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/D/E/F	(shares=1024)

The same benchmark is running in group C & F, no other tasks are
running, the benchmark is capable to consumed all the CPUs.

We suppose the group C will win more CPU resources since it could
enjoy all the shares of group A, but it's F who wins much more.

The reason is because we have group B with shares as 2, since
A->cfs_rq.load.weight == B->se.load.weight == B->shares/nr_cpus,
so A->cfs_rq.load.weight become very small.

And in calc_group_shares() we calculate shares as:

  load = max(scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight), cfs_rq->avg.load_avg);
  shares = (tg_shares * load) / tg_weight;

Since the 'cfs_rq->load.weight' is too small, the load become 0
after scale down, although 'tg_shares' is 102400, shares of the se
which stand for group A on root cfs_rq become 2.

While the se of D on root cfs_rq is far more bigger than 2, so it
wins the battle.

Thus when scale_load_down() scale real weight down to 0, it's no
longer telling the real story, the caller will have the wrong
information and the calculation will be buggy.

This patch add check in scale_load_down(), so the real weight will
be >= MIN_SHARES after scale, after applied the group C wins as
expected.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/38e8e212-59a1-64b2-b247-b6d0b52d8dc1@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/sched.h | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index e5e2605778c97..c7e7481968bfa 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -118,7 +118,13 @@ extern long calc_load_fold_active(struct rq *this_rq, long adjust);
 #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
 # define NICE_0_LOAD_SHIFT	(SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT + SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT)
 # define scale_load(w)		((w) << SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT)
-# define scale_load_down(w)	((w) >> SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT)
+# define scale_load_down(w) \
+({ \
+	unsigned long __w = (w); \
+	if (__w) \
+		__w = max(2UL, __w >> SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT); \
+	__w; \
+})
 #else
 # define NICE_0_LOAD_SHIFT	(SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT)
 # define scale_load(w)		(w)
-- 
2.20.1