lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path
From
Date
On 6/5/2017 11:23 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 4:27 PM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index d711093..84255ab 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6737,10 +6737,10 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p,
>> struct lb_env *env)
>> * our sched_group. We may want to revisit it if we couldn't
>> * meet load balance goals by pulling other tasks on src_cpu.
>> *
>> - * Also avoid computing new_dst_cpu if we have already computed
>> - * one in current iteration.
>> + * Avoid computing new_dst_cpu for NEWLY_IDLE or if we have
>> + * already computed one in current iteration.
>> */
>> - if (!env->dst_grpmask || (env->flags & LBF_DST_PINNED))
>> + if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE || (env->flags &
>> LBF_DST_PINNED))
>> return 0;
>
> Self NACK. This breaks active_load_balance_cpu_stop(). Looks like
> env->idle == CPU_IDLE, but env->dst_grpmask is uninitialized, so it can
> be NULL, which causes a null pointer dereference a few lines later.
>
> I'm still having a look to see what makes sense to address the issue.
>
>

As far as I can see, there appears to be two options to resolve the issue -

1. Update active_load_balance_cpu_stop() to initialize dst_grpmask to a
sane value

2. Undo the proposed changes in load_balance() to "ensure" dst_grpmask
is valid, and calculate the value on demand when checking to see if the
redo path needs to be done.

The downside to #1 is that dst_grpmask is not needed in the
active_load_balance_cpu_stop() path, and the loop to calculate a new
dst_cpu will be used. Extra code is evaluated, but there appears to be
no side effects.

The downside to #2 is that dst_grpmask is valid the majority of the time
in load_balance(), so calculating it on demand is redundant most of the
time, but again there appears to be no side effects.

It somewhat feels like a choice of which option is less bad.

Peter/Dietmar, any preferences?

--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-12 00:31    [W:0.055 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site