| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200713180925.mot4tmz3ifnrurx5@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 19:09:25 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT
default boost value
On 07/13/20 18:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:27:55PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 07/13/20 15:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > I protect this with rcu_read_lock() which as far as I know synchronize_rcu()
> > > > will ensure if we do the update during this section; we'll wait for it to
> > > > finish. New forkees entering the rcu_read_lock() section will be okay because
> > > > they should see the new value.
> > > >
> > > > spinlocks() and mutexes seemed inferior to this approach.
> > >
> > > Well, didn't we just write in another patch that p->uclamp_* was
> > > protected by both rq->lock and p->pi_lock?
> >
> > __setscheduler_uclamp() path is holding these locks, not sure by design or it
> > just happened this path holds the lock. I can't see the lock in the
> > uclamp_fork() path. But it's hard sometimes to unfold the layers of callers,
> > especially not all call sites are annotated for which lock is assumed to be
> > held.
> >
> > Is it safe to hold the locks in uclamp_fork() while the task is still being
> > created? My new code doesn't hold it of course.
> >
> > We can enforce this rule if you like. Though rcu critical section seems lighter
> > weight to me.
> >
> > If all of this does indeed start looking messy we can put the update in
> > a delayed worker and schedule that instead of doing synchronous setup.
>
> sched_fork() doesn't need the locks, because at that point the task
> isn't visible yet. HOWEVER, sched_post_fork() is after pid-hash (per
> design) and thus the task is visible, so we can race against
> sched_setattr(), so we'd better hold those locks anyway.
Okay. I thought task_rq_lock() is expensive because it'll compete with other
users in fast path.
I got the below which I am testing. I hit a splat in uclamp static key too
while testing this :( I'll test them in unison and lump the fix in this series
in the next version.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
---
include/linux/sched.h | 10 ++++--
kernel/sched/core.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 12b10ce51a08..81c4eed8d9a3 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -686,9 +686,15 @@ struct task_struct {
struct sched_dl_entity dl;
#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
- /* Clamp values requested for a scheduling entity */
+ /*
+ * Clamp values requested for a scheduling entity.
+ * Must be updated with task_rq_lock() held.
+ */
struct uclamp_se uclamp_req[UCLAMP_CNT];
- /* Effective clamp values used for a scheduling entity */
+ /*
+ * Effective clamp values used for a scheduling entity.
+ * Must be updated with task_rq_lock() held.
+ */
struct uclamp_se uclamp[UCLAMP_CNT];
#endif
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 45bd4d9d2bba..8a648da4e7f2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -914,74 +914,55 @@ unsigned int uclamp_rq_max_value(struct rq *rq, enum uclamp_id clamp_id,
return uclamp_idle_value(rq, clamp_id, clamp_value);
}
-static void __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(struct task_struct *p)
+static void __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default_locked(struct task_struct *p)
{
unsigned int default_util_min;
struct uclamp_se *uc_se;
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
-
- if (!rt_task(p))
- return;
-
uc_se = &p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN];
/* Only sync if user didn't override the default */
if (uc_se->user_defined)
return;
- /* Sync with smp_wmb() in uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default() */
- smp_rmb();
default_util_min = sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default;
uclamp_se_set(uc_se, default_util_min, false);
}
+static void __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ struct rq_flags rf;
+ struct rq *rq;
+
+ if (!rt_task(p))
+ return;
+
+ /* Protect updates to p->uclamp_* */
+ rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
+ __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default_locked(p);
+ task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
+}
+
static void uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(void)
{
struct task_struct *g, *p;
/*
- * Make sure the updated sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default which
- * was just written is synchronized against any future read on another
- * cpu.
- */
- smp_wmb();
-
- /*
- * Wait for all updaters to observe the new change.
- *
- * There are 2 races to deal with here:
- *
- * 1. fork()->copy_process()
- *
- * If a task was concurrently forking, for_each_process_thread()
- * will not see it, hence it could have copied the old value and
- * we missed the opportunity to update it.
- *
- * This should be handled by sched_post_fork() where it'll ensure
- * it performs the sync after the fork.
- *
- * 2. fork()->sched_post_fork()
- * __setscheduler_uclamp()
- *
- * Both of these functions could read the old value but then get
- * preempted, during which a user might write new value to
- * sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default.
+ * copy_process() sysctl_uclamp
+ * uclamp_min_rt = X;
+ * write_lock(&tasklist_lock) read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
+ * // link thread smp_mb__after_spinlock()
+ * write_unlock(&tasklist_lock) read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ * sched_post_fork() for_each_process_thread()
+ * __uclamp_sync_rt() __uclamp_sync_rt()
*
- * // read sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default;
- * // PREEMPT-OUT
- * .
- * . <-- sync happens here
- * .
- * // PREEMPT-IN
- * // write p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN]
- *
- * That section is protected with rcu_read_lock(), so
- * synchronize_rcu() will guarantee it has finished before we
- * perform the update. Hence ensure that this sync happens after
- * any concurrent sync which should guarantee correctness.
+ * Ensures that either sched_post_fork() will observe the new
+ * uclamp_min_rt or for_each_process_thread() will observe the new
+ * task.
*/
- synchronize_rcu();
+ read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process_thread(g, p)
@@ -1377,9 +1358,7 @@ static void __setscheduler_uclamp(struct task_struct *p,
* at runtime.
*/
if (unlikely(rt_task(p) && clamp_id == UCLAMP_MIN)) {
- rcu_read_lock();
- __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(p);
- rcu_read_unlock();
+ __uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default_locked(p);
} else {
uclamp_se_set(uc_se, uclamp_none(clamp_id), false);
}
@@ -1420,9 +1399,7 @@ static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p)
static void uclamp_post_fork(struct task_struct *p)
{
- rcu_read_lock();
__uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(p);
- rcu_read_unlock();
}
static void __init init_uclamp_rq(struct rq *rq)
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists