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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6bcc899c-a2a5-7b77-dcff-436d2a7cc688@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:21:01 +0800
From: Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Ben Segall
 <bsegall@...gle.com>, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....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


Hi Aaron,

On 2025/10/15 16:40, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:31:27PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
>> On 2025/10/15 10:51, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:43:20AM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
>>> ... ...
>>>> Yes, I've already hit the cfs_rq->runtime_remaining < 0 condition in
>>>> tg_unthrottle_up().
>>>>
>>>> This morning, after applying your patch, I still get the same issue.
>>>> However, As before, because cfs_rq->curr isn't NULL,
>>>> check_enqueue_throttle() returns prematurely, preventing the triggering of
>>>> throttle_cfs_rq().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some information to share with you.
>>>
>>> Can you also share your cgroup setup and related quota setting etc. and
>>> how to trigger it? Thanks.
>>
>> I ran some internal workloads on my test machine with different quota
>> settings, and added 10 sched messaging branchmark cgroups, setting their
>> cpu.max to 1000 100000.
>>
>> perf bench sched messaging -g 10 -t -l 50000 &
>>
>> I'm not sure if the issue can be reproduced without these internal
>> workloads.
> 
> Thanks for the report, I think I understand your concern now.
> 
> I managed to trigger a condition in tg_unthrottle_up() for a cfs_rq that
> has runtime_enabled but with a negative runtime_remaining, the setup is
> as before:
> 
>            root
>          /      \
>          A*     ...
>       /  |  \   ...
>          B
>         /  \
>        C*
> 
> where both A and C have quota settings.
> 
> 1 Initially, both cfs_rq_a and cfs_rq_c are in unthrottled state with a
>    positive runtime_remaining.
> 2 At some time, cfs_rq_a is throttled. cfs_rq_c is now in a throttled
>    hierarchy, but it's not throttled and has a positive runtime_remaining.
> 3 Some time later, task @p gets enqueued to cfs_rq_c and starts execution
>    in kernel mode, consumed all cfs_rq_c's runtime_remaining.
>    account_cfs_rq_runtime() properly accounted, but resched_curr() doesn't
>    cause schedule() -> check_cfs_rq_runtime() -> throttle_cfs_rq() to
>    happen immediately, because task @p is still executing in kernel mode
>    (CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY).
> 4 Some time later, cfs_rq_a is unthrottled.
>    tg_unthrottle_up() noticed cfs_rq_c has a negative runtime_remaining.
> 
> In this situation, check_enqueue_throttle() will not do anything though
> because cfs_rq_c->curr is set, throttle will not happen immediately so
> it won't cause throttle to happen on unthrottle path.
> 
> Hao Jia,
> 
> Do I understand you correctly that you can only hit the newly added
> debug warn in tg_unthrottle_up():
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0);
> but not throttle triggered on unthrottle path?
> 

yes. but I'm not sure if there are other corner cases where 
cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0 and cfs_rq->curr is NULL.

> BTW, I think your change has the advantage of being straightforward and
> easy to reason about. My concern is, it's not efficient to enqueue tasks
> to a cfs_rq that has no runtime left, not sure how big a deal that is
> though.

Yes, but that's what we're doing now. The case described above involves 
enqueue a task where cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0.

I previously tried adding a runtime_remaining check for each level of 
task p's cfs_rq in unthrottle_cfs_rq()/tg_unthrottle_up(), but this made 
the code strange and complicated.

Thanks,
Hao





> 
> Thanks.