linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix nohz.next

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: <29e99235-71c3-8e15-b9ab-263fa70fd861@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 18:05:50 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix nohz.next_balance update

On 04/05/2020 17:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 10:34, Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> commit c5afb6a87f23 ("sched/fair: Fix nohz.next_balance update")
>> During idle load balance, this_cpu(ilb) do load balance for the other
>> idle CPUs, also gather the earliest (nohz.)next_balance.
>>
>> Since commit:
>>   'b7031a02ec75 ("sched/fair: Add NOHZ_STATS_KICK")'
>>
>> We update nohz.next_balance like this:
>>
>>   _nohz_idle_balance() {
>>       for_each_cpu(nohz.idle_cpus_mask) {
>>           rebalance_domains() {
>>               update nohz.next_balance <-- compare and update
>>           }
>>       }
>>       rebalance_domains(this_cpu) {
>>           update nohz.next_balance <-- compare and update
>>       }
>>       update nohz.next_balance <-- unconditionally update
>>   }
>>
>> For instance, nohz.idle_cpus_mask spans {cpu2,3,5,8}, and this_cpu is
>> cpu5. After the above loop we could gather the earliest *next_balance*
>> among {cpu2,3,8}, then rebalance_domains(this_cpu) update
>> nohz.next_balance with this_rq->next_balance, but finally overwrite
>> nohz.next_balance with the earliest *next_balance* among {cpu2,3,8},
>> we may end up with not getting the earliest next_balance.
>>
>> Since we can gather all the updated rq->next_balance, including this_cpu,
>> in _nohz_idle_balance(), it's safe to remove the extra lines in
>> rebalance_domains() which are originally intended for this_cpu. And
>> finally the updating only happen in _nohz_idle_balance().
> 
> I'm not sure that's always true. Nothing prevents nohz_idle_balance()
> to return false . Then run_rebalance_domains() calls
> rebalance_domains(this_rq ,SCHED_IDLE) outside _nohz_idle_balance().
> In this case we must keep the code in rebalance_domains().

I came to the same conclusion. It was done like this till v4.0 and IMHO
c5afb6a87f23 fixed it in v4.4.

> For example when the tick is not stopped when entering idle. Or when
> need_resched() returns true.
> 
> So instead of removing the code from rebalance_domains, you should
> move the one in _nohz_idle_balance() to make sure that the "if
> (likely(update_next_balance)) ..." is called before calling
> rebalance_domains for the local cpu

Makes sense, to avoid that we possibly override nohz.next_balance
wrongly (in case time_after(next_balance, this_rq->next_balance);

[...]