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: <20241210144307.GV35539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:43:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	vschneid@...hat.com, sshegde@...ux.ibm.com, srikar@...ux.ibm.com,
	vineethr@...ux.ibm.com, zhangqiao22@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix CPU bandwidth limit bypass during CPU
 hotplug

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:53:47PM +0530, Vishal Chourasia wrote:
> CPU controller limits are not properly enforced during CPU hotplug
> operations, particularly during CPU offline. When a CPU goes offline,
> throttled processes are unintentionally being unthrottled across all CPUs
> in the system, allowing them to exceed their assigned quota limits.
> 
> Consider below for an example,
> 
> Assigning 6.25% bandwidth limit to a cgroup
> in a 8 CPU system, where, workload is running 8 threads for 20 seconds at
> 100% CPU utilization, expected (user+sys) time = 10 seconds.
> 
> $ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/test/cpu.max
> 50000 100000
> 
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20        // non-hotplug case
> real 20.00 s
> user 10.81 s                 // intended behaviour
> sys   0.00 s
> 
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20        // hotplug case
> real 20.00 s
> user 14.43 s                 // Workload is able to run for 14 secs
> sys   0.00 s                 // when it should have only run for 10 secs
> 
> During CPU hotplug, scheduler domains are rebuilt and cpu_attach_domain
> is called for every active CPU to update the root domain. That ends up
> calling rq_offline_fair which un-throttles any throttled hierarchies.
> 
> Unthrottling should only occur for the CPU being hotplugged to allow its
> throttled processes to become runnable and get migrated to other CPUs.
> 
> With current patch applied,
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20        // hotplug case
> real 21.00 s
> user 10.16 s                 // intended behaviour
> sys   0.00 s
> 
> Note: hotplug operation (online, offline) was performed in while(1) loop
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@...ux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>

Did you mean this?

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2c4ebfc82917..b6afb8337e73 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6696,6 +6696,9 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
 
 	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
 
+	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu_of(rq), cpu_active_mask))
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * The rq clock has already been updated in the
 	 * set_rq_offline(), so we should skip updating

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ