linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Skip overflow check if 0 capacity

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: <c4eebfa9-bfea-4ebe-b5d1-de88f1f5cc54@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:41:52 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 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>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Skip overflow check if 0 capacity

On 11/8/24 11:31 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 08/11/24 08:39, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 11/8/24 8:25 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> On 07/11/24 23:29, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> By properly setting up a 1-cpu sched domain (partition) with no
>>>> task, it was found that offlining that particular CPU failed because
>>>> dl_bw_check_overflow() in cpuset_cpu_inactive() returned -EBUSY. This
>>>> is due to the fact that dl_bw_capacity() return 0 as the sched domain
>>>> has no active CPU causing a false positive in the overflow check.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this corner case by skipping the __dl_overflow() check in
>>>> dl_bw_manage() when the returned capacity is 0.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> index be1b917dc8ce..0195f350d6d3 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> @@ -3479,7 +3479,13 @@ static int dl_bw_manage(enum dl_bw_request req, int cpu, u64 dl_bw)
>>>>    	} else {
>>>>    		unsigned long cap = dl_bw_capacity(cpu);
>>>> -		overflow = __dl_overflow(dl_b, cap, 0, dl_bw);
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * In the unlikely case of 0 capacity (e.g. a sched domain
>>>> +		 * with no active CPUs), skip the overflow check as it will
>>>> +		 * always return a false positive.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (likely(cap))
>>>> +			overflow = __dl_overflow(dl_b, cap, 0, dl_bw);
>>> The remaining total_bw that make this check fail should be the one
>>> relative to the dl_server on the cpu that is going offline. Wonder if we
>>> shouldn't rather clean that up (remove dl_server contribution) before we
>>> get to this point during an hotplug operation. Need to think about it a
>>> little more.
>> static inline bool
>> __dl_overflow(struct dl_bw *dl_b, unsigned long cap, u64 old_bw, u64 new_bw)
>> {
>>          return dl_b->bw != -1 &&
>>                 cap_scale(dl_b->bw, cap) < dl_b->total_bw - old_bw + new_bw;
>> }
>>
>> With a 0 cap, cap_scale(dl_b->bw, cap) will always be 0. As long as total_bw
>> isn't 0 and bw isn't -1, the condition will be true.
> Right, but I fear that by hiding the special corner case we would also
> miss the cases where we have DEADLINE tasks with bandwidth on that
> single CPU and then ignore it.
>
> So, maybe something like the below?
>
> ---
>   kernel/sched/deadline.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index be1b917dc8ce..7884e566557c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -130,11 +130,24 @@ static inline int dl_bw_cpus(int i)
>   	if (cpumask_subset(rd->span, cpu_active_mask))
>   		return cpumask_weight(rd->span);
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Hotplug extreme case in which the last remaining online CPU in a
> +	 * root domain is going offline. We get here after that cpus has been
> +	 * cleared from cpu_active_mask, so the loop below would return 0
> +	 * CPUs, which of course doesn't make much sense. Return at least 1
> +	 * CPU.
> +	 */
> +
> +	if (cpumask_weight(rd->span) == 1)
> +		return 1;
> +
>   	cpus = 0;
>   
>   	for_each_cpu_and(i, rd->span, cpu_active_mask)
>   		cpus++;
>   
> +	WARN_ON(!cpus);
> +
>   	return cpus;
>   }
> ---

This patch looks good to me.

With this patch and my cpuset patches applied, the test_cpuset_prs.sh 
test passed without any error. You can add the following tags if you 
send this patch out.

Reported-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Tested-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com

> That said though, I believe I just found an additional issue. With the
> above the system doesn't crash (it did w/o it), but happily moves
> DEADLINE tasks out of a domain with a single CPU going offline. Last
> time I looked at this we were properly checking and failing the hotplug
> operation, but it was indeed a while ago, so not sure yet what changed.
> More staring.
>
> Oh, so broken, yay. :)

The cpuset code will move tasks in a partition with no effective CPUs to 
its parent.

Cheers,
Longman