linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled with zero runtime

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: <658734b1-b02b-4e04-8479-ed17eb42c1f2@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 14:28:16 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
CC: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Chengming Zhou
	<chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Xi Wang
	<xii@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli
	<juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, "Steven
 Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Chuyi Zhou
	<zhouchuyi@...edance.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, "Florian
 Bezdeka" <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>, Songtang Liu
	<liusongtang@...edance.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Matteo Martelli
	<matteo.martelli@...ethink.co.uk>, Michal Koutný
	<mkoutny@...e.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled with
 zero runtime_remaining

Hello Aaron,

On 9/30/2025 1:26 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 03:04:03PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> ... ...
>> Can we instead do a check_enqueue_throttle() in enqueue_throttled_task()
>> if we find cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list to be empty?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 18a30ae35441..fd2d4dad9c27 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5872,6 +5872,8 @@ static bool enqueue_throttled_task(struct task_struct *p)
>>  	 */
>>  	if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq) &&
>>  	    !task_current_donor(rq_of(cfs_rq), p)) {
>                 /*
>                  * Make sure to throttle this cfs_rq or it can be unthrottled
>                  * with no runtime_remaining and gets throttled again on its
>                  * unthrottle path.
>                  */
>> +		if (list_empty(&cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list))
>> +			check_enqueue_throttle(cfs_rq);
> 
> BTW, do you think a comment is needed? Something like the above, not
> sure if it's too redundant though, feel free to let me know your
> thoughts, thanks.

Now that I'm looking at it again, I think we should actually do a:

    for_each_entity(se)
        check_enqueue_throttle(cfs_rq_of(se));

The reason being, we can have:

    root -> A (throttled) -> B -> C

Consider B has runtime_remaining = 0, and subsequently a throttled task
is queued onto C. Ideally, we should start the B/W timer for B at that
point but we bail out after queuing it on C. Thoughts?

Since we only catch up to the 0 runtime_remaining point, it should be
fine.

The comment can perhaps be something like:

	/*
	 * If this is the first enqueue on throttled hierarchy,
	 * ensure bandwidth is available when the hierarchy is
	 * unthrottled. check_enqueue_throttle() will ensure
	 * either some bandwidth is available, or will throttle
	 * the cfs_rq and queue the bandwidth timer.
	 */

> 
>>  		list_add(&p->throttle_node, &cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list);
>>  		return true;
>>  	}
>> ---

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek