linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v22 3/6] sched: Add logic to zap balance callbacks if we pick again

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: <20251008113718.GV3419281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:37:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@....com>,
	Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@...iatek.com>, hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com>,
	kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 3/6] sched: Add logic to zap balance callbacks if we
 pick again

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 03:29:11AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:

> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> +/*
> + * Only called from __schedule context
> + *
> + * There are some cases where we are going to re-do the action
> + * that added the balance callbacks. We may not be in a state
> + * where we can run them, so just zap them so they can be
> + * properly re-added on the next time around. This is similar
> + * handling to running the callbacks, except we just don't call
> + * them.
> + */
> +static void zap_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	struct balance_callback *next, *head;
> +	bool found = false;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
> +
> +	head = rq->balance_callback;
> +	while (head) {
> +		if (head == &balance_push_callback)
> +			found = true;
> +		next = head->next;
> +		head->next = NULL;
> +		head = next;
> +	}
> +	rq->balance_callback = found ? &balance_push_callback : NULL;
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void zap_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq) {}
> +#endif
> +
>  static void do_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, struct balance_callback *head)
>  {
>  	void (*func)(struct rq *rq);
> @@ -6942,10 +6974,15 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
>  	rq_set_donor(rq, next);
>  	if (unlikely(task_is_blocked(next))) {
>  		next = find_proxy_task(rq, next, &rf);
> -		if (!next)
> +		if (!next) {
> +			/* zap the balance_callbacks before picking again */
> +			zap_balance_callbacks(rq);
>  			goto pick_again;
> -		if (next == rq->idle)
> +		}
> +		if (next == rq->idle) {
> +			zap_balance_callbacks(rq);
>  			goto keep_resched;
> +		}
>  	}
>  picked:
>  	clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);

I would feel a wee bit better if you'd add something like:

  pick_again:
+	assert_balance_callbacks_empty();
	next = pick_next_task(...);

And have that verify the balance list is indeed empty (save for push).
Perhaps make that depend on PROVE_LOCKING or so; since someone went and
deleted SCHED_DEBUG *sigh*.