linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Fix 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: <20200508170213.GA27353@geo.homenetwork>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 01:02:13 +0800
From:   Tao Zhou <zohooouoto@...o.com.cn>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Tao Zhou <ouwen210@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning some more

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:27:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 17:12, Tao Zhou <zohooouoto@...o.com.cn> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:36:12PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning some more
> > >
> > > The recent patch, fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning)
> > > did not fully resolve the issues with the rq->tmp_alone_branch !=
> > > &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list warning in enqueue_task_fair. There is a case where
> > > the first for_each_sched_entity loop exits due to on_rq, having incompletely
> > > updated the list.  In this case the second for_each_sched_entity loop can
> > > further modify se. The later code to fix up the list management fails to do
> > > what is needed because se no longer points to the sched_entity which broke
> > > out of the first loop.
> > >
> >
> > > Address this by calling leaf_add_rq_list if there are throttled parents while
> > > doing the second for_each_sched_entity loop.
> >
> > Thanks for your trace imformation and explanation. I
> > truely have learned from this and that.
> >
> > s/leaf_add_rq_list/list_add_leaf_cfs_rq/
> >
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 02f323b85b6d..c6d57c334d51 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -5479,6 +5479,13 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > >               /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */
> > >               if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> > >                       goto enqueue_throttle;
> > > +
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * One parent has been throttled and cfs_rq removed from the
> > > +                * list. Add it back to not break the leaf list.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> > > +                       list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > >       }
> >
> > I was confused by why the throttled cfs rq can be on list.
> > It is possible when enqueue a task and thanks to the 'threads'.
> > But I think the above comment does not truely put the right
> > intention, right ?
> > If throttled parent is onlist, the child cfs_rq is ignored
> > to be added to the leaf cfs_rq list me think.
> >
> > unthrottle_cfs_rq() follows the same logic if i am not wrong.
> > Is it necessary to add the above to it ?
> 
> When a cfs_rq is throttled, its sched group is dequeued and all child
> cfs_rq are removed from  leaf_cfs_rq list. But the sched group of the
> child cfs_rq stay enqueued in the throttled cfs_rq so child sched
> group->on_rq might be still set.

If there is a throttle of throttle, and unthrottle the child throttled
cfs_rq(ugly):
                               ...
                                |
                      cfs_rq throttled (parent A)
                                |
                                |
                      cfs_rq in hierarchy (B)
                                |
                                |
                      cfs_rq throttled (C)
                                |
                               ...

Then unthrottle the child throttled cfs_rq C, now the A is on the 
leaf_cfs_rq list. sched_group entity of C is enqueued to B, and 
sched_group entity of B is on_rq and is ignored by enqueue but in
the throttled hierarchy and not add to leaf_cfs_rq list.
The above may be absolutely wrong that I miss something.

Another thing :
In enqueue_task_fair():

	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);

		if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq))
			break;
	}

In unthrottle_cfs_rq():

	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);

		list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
	}

The difference between them is that if condition, add if
condition to unthrottle_cfs_rq() may be an optimization and
keep the same.

> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tau
> >
> > >
> > >  enqueue_throttle:
> > > --
> > > 2.18.0
> > >
> > > V2 rework the fix based on Vincent's suggestion. Thanks Vincent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > --
> > >