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  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]
Date:   Sun, 5 Jul 2020 16:44:52 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <>
To:     Joel Fernandes <>
Cc:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <>,
        Julien Desfossez <>,,,,,,,,,, Phil Auld <>,
        Aaron Lu <>,
        Aubrey Li <>,
        Valentin Schneider <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        Pawan Gupta <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,,
        Chen Yu <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Aaron Lu <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and

On 7/2/20 5:57 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 05:54:11PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>> On 7/1/20 4:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:32:27PM +0000, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <>
>>>> Instead of only selecting a local task, select a task for all SMT
>>>> siblings for every reschedule on the core (irrespective which logical
>>>> CPU does the reschedule).
>>>> There could be races in core scheduler where a CPU is trying to pick
>>>> a task for its sibling in core scheduler, when that CPU has just been
>>>> offlined.  We should not schedule any tasks on the CPU in this case.
>>>> Return an idle task in pick_next_task for this situation.
>>>> NOTE: there is still potential for siblings rivalry.
>>>> NOTE: this is far too complicated; but thus far I've failed to
>>>>       simplify it further.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Desfossez <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <>
>>> Hi Peter, Tim, all, the below patch fixes the hotplug issue described in the
>>> below patch's Link tag. Patch description below describes the issues fixed
>>> and it applies on top of this patch.
>>> ------8<----------
>>> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] sched: Fix CPU hotplug causing crashes in task selection logic
>>> The selection logic does not run correctly if the current CPU is not in the
>>> cpu_smt_mask (which it is not because the CPU is offlined when the stopper
>>> finishes running and needs to switch to idle).  There are also other issues
>>> fixed by the patch I think such as: if some other sibling set core_pick to
>>> something, however the selection logic on current cpu resets it before
>>> selecting. In this case, we need to run the task selection logic again to
>>> make sure it picks something if there is something to run. It might end up
>>> picking the wrong task.  Yet another issue was, if the stopper thread is an
> "It might end up picking the wrong task" needs to be: "We might end up
> picking a different task but that's Ok".
>>> unconstrained pick, then rq->core_pick is set. The next time task selection
>>> logic runs when stopper needs to switch to idle, the current CPU is not in
>>> the smt_mask. This causes the previous ->core_pick to be picked again which
>>> happens to be the unconstrained task! so the stopper keeps getting selected
>>> forever.
>>> That and there are a few more safe guards and checks around checking/setting
>>> rq->core_pick. To test it, I ran rcutorture and made it tag all torture
>>> threads. Then ran it in hotplug mode (hotplugging every 200ms) and it hit the
>>> issue. Now it runs for an hour or so without issue. (Torture testing debug
>>> changes: ).
>>> Various fixes were tried causing varying degrees of crashes.  Finally I found
>>> that it is easiest to just add current CPU to the smt_mask's copy always.
>>> This is so that task selection logic always runs on the current CPU which
>>> called schedule().
>> It looks good to me. 
> Thank you for your review! Could I add your Reviewed-by tag to the patch?



Powered by blists - more mailing lists