linux-kernel - [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix pelt lost idle time detection

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251008131214.3759798-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Wed,  8 Oct 2025 15:12:14 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de,
	vschneid@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix pelt lost idle time detection

The check for some lost idle pelt time should be always done when 
pick_next_task_fair() fails to pick a task and not only when we call it
from the fair fast-path.

The case happens when the last running task on rq is a RT or DL task. When
the latter goes to sleep and the /Sum of util_sum of the rq is at the max
value, we don't account the lost of idle time whereas we should.

Fixes: 67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
---

I Noticed this while reviewing [1]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251006105453.648473106@infradead.org/

 kernel/sched/fair.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index b3be1e2749ce..dd0ea01af730 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8920,21 +8920,21 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
 	return p;
 
 idle:
-	if (!rf)
-		return NULL;
-
-	new_tasks = sched_balance_newidle(rq, rf);
+	if (rf) {
+		new_tasks = sched_balance_newidle(rq, rf);
 
-	/*
-	 * Because sched_balance_newidle() releases (and re-acquires) rq->lock, it is
-	 * possible for any higher priority task to appear. In that case we
-	 * must re-start the pick_next_entity() loop.
-	 */
-	if (new_tasks < 0)
-		return RETRY_TASK;
+		/*
+		 * Because sched_balance_newidle() releases (and re-acquires)
+		 * rq->lock, it is possible for any higher priority task to
+		 * appear. In that case we must re-start the pick_next_entity()
+		 * loop.
+		 */
+		if (new_tasks < 0)
+			return RETRY_TASK;
 
-	if (new_tasks > 0)
-		goto again;
+		if (new_tasks > 0)
+			goto again;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * rq is about to be idle, check if we need to update the
-- 
2.43.0