linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix wrong cpu selecting from isolated domain

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:53:49 +0800
From:   Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Wetp Zhang <wetp.zy@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix wrong cpu selecting from isolated domain

On 2020/8/24 PM8:30, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> We've met problems that occasionally tasks with full cpumask
> (e.g. by putting it into a cpuset or setting to full affinity)
> were migrated to our isolated cpus in production environment.
> 
> After some analysis, we found that it is due to the current
> select_idle_smt() not considering the sched_domain mask.
> 
> Fix it by checking the valid domain mask in select_idle_smt().
> 
> Fixes: 10e2f1acd010 ("sched/core: Rewrite and improve select_idle_siblings())
> Reported-by: Wetp Zhang <wetp.zy@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 1a68a05..fa942c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6075,7 +6075,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int
>  /*
>   * Scan the local SMT mask for idle CPUs.
>   */
> -static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
> +static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
>  
> @@ -6083,7 +6083,8 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
>  		return -1;
>  
>  	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) {
> -		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
> +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr) ||
> +		    !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
>  			continue;
>  		if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
>  			return cpu;
> @@ -6099,7 +6100,7 @@ static inline int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *s
>  	return -1;
>  }
>  
> -static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
> +static inline int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
>  {
>  	return -1;
>  }
> @@ -6274,7 +6275,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>  	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>  		return i;
>  
> -	i = select_idle_smt(p, target);
> +	i = select_idle_smt(p, sd, target);
>  	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>  		return i;
>  
> 

Hi Peter, any other comments?