| 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: <0decbc3a-ee1e-e84b-915d-d77b75ec1df6@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 16:17:58 +0800
From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <vschneid@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
<yu.c.chen@...el.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
<prime.zeng@...wei.com>, <wangjie125@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Don't balance task to its current running CPU
On 2023/5/25 23:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 09:21, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>>
>> We've run into the case that the balancer tries to balance a migration
>> disabled task and trigger the warning in set_task_cpu() like below:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/core.c:3115 set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
>> Modules linked in: hclgevf xt_CHECKSUM ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 <...snip>
>> CPU: 7 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/7 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G O 6.1.0-rc4+ #1
>> Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDC, BIOS 2280-V2 CS V5.B221.01 12/09/2021
>> pstate: 604000c9 (nZCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>> pc : set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
>> lr : load_balance+0x5d0/0xc60
>> sp : ffff80000803bc70
>> x29: ffff80000803bc70 x28: ffff004089e190e8 x27: ffff004089e19040
>> x26: ffff007effcabc38 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: 0000000000000001
>> x23: ffff80000803be84 x22: 000000000000000c x21: ffffb093e79e2a78
>> x20: 000000000000000c x19: ffff004089e19040 x18: 0000000000000000
>> x17: 0000000000001fad x16: 0000000000000030 x15: 0000000000000000
>> x14: 0000000000000003 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
>> x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000400 x9 : ffffb093e4cee530
>> x8 : 00000000fffffffe x7 : 0000000000ce168a x6 : 000000000000013e
>> x5 : 00000000ffffffe1 x4 : 0000000000000001 x3 : 0000000000000b2a
>> x2 : 0000000000000b2a x1 : ffffb093e6d6c510 x0 : 0000000000000001
>> Call trace:
>> set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
>> load_balance+0x5d0/0xc60
>> rebalance_domains+0x26c/0x380
>> _nohz_idle_balance.isra.0+0x1e0/0x370
>> run_rebalance_domains+0x6c/0x80
>> __do_softirq+0x128/0x3d8
>> ____do_softirq+0x18/0x24
>> call_on_irq_stack+0x2c/0x38
>> do_softirq_own_stack+0x24/0x3c
>> __irq_exit_rcu+0xcc/0xf4
>> irq_exit_rcu+0x18/0x24
>> el1_interrupt+0x4c/0xe4
>> el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x2c
>> el1h_64_irq+0x74/0x78
>> arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x4c
>> default_idle_call+0x58/0x194
>> do_idle+0x244/0x2b0
>> cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x3c
>> secondary_start_kernel+0x14c/0x190
>> __secondary_switched+0xb0/0xb4
>> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>
>> Further investigation shows that the warning is superfluous, the migration
>> disabled task is just going to be migrated to its current running CPU.
>> This is because that on load balance if the dst_cpu is not allowed by the
>> task, we'll re-select a new_dst_cpu as a candidate. If no task can be
>> balanced to dst_cpu we'll try to balance the task to the new_dst_cpu
>> instead. In this case when the migration disabled task is not on CPU it
>> only allows to run on its current CPU, load balance will select its
>> current CPU as new_dst_cpu and later triggers the the warning above.
>>
>> This patch tries to solve this by not select the task's current running
>> CPU as new_dst_cpu in the load balance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>> ---
>> Thanks Valentin for the knowledge of migration disable. Previous discussion can
>> be found at
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230313065759.39698-1-yangyicong@huawei.com/
>>
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 7a1b1f855b96..3c4f3a244c1d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -8456,7 +8456,8 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>>
>> /* Prevent to re-select dst_cpu via env's CPUs: */
>> for_each_cpu_and(cpu, env->dst_grpmask, env->cpus) {
>> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) {
>> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr) &&
>> + cpu != env->src_cpu) {
>
> So I'm a bit surprised that src_cpu can be part of the dst_grpmask and
> selected as new_dst_cpu. The only reason would be some numa
> overlapping domains. Is it the case for you ?
>
It's a 2P 4 NUMA machine, the groups in the top NUMA domains are overlapped, for example for CPU64:
[ 3.147038] CPU64 attaching sched-domain(s):
[ 3.147040] domain-0: span=64-67 level=CLS
[ 3.147043] groups: 64:{ span=64 cap=1023 }, 65:{ span=65 cap=1023 }, 66:{ span=66 cap=1023 }, 67:{ span=67 }
[ 3.147056] domain-1: span=64-95 level=MC
[ 3.147059] groups: 64:{ span=64-67 cap=4093 }, 68:{ span=68-71 cap=4096 }, 72:{ span=72-75 cap=4096 }, 76:{ span=76-79 cap=4096 }, 80:{ span=80-83 cap=4096 }, 84:{ span=84-87 cap=4096 }, 88:{ span=88-91 cap=4096 }, 92:{ span=92-95 cap=4096 }
[ 3.147085] domain-2: span=64-127 level=NUMA
[ 3.147087] groups: 64:{ span=64-95 cap=32765 }, 96:{ span=96-127 cap=32767 }
[ 3.147095] domain-3: span=0-31,64-127 level=NUMA
[ 3.147098] groups: 64:{ span=64-127 cap=65532 }, 0:{ span=0-31 cap=32767 }
[ 3.147106] domain-4: span=0-127 level=NUMA
[ 3.147109] groups: 64:{ span=0-31,64-127 mask=64-95 cap=98300 }, 32:{ span=0-63 mask=32-63 cap=65531 }
>> env->flags |= LBF_DST_PINNED;
>> env->new_dst_cpu = cpu;
>> break;
>> --
>> 2.24.0
>>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists