lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] x86, sched: Prevent divisions by zero in frequency invariant accounting
From
Date
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 15:30 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:49PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> > The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
> >
> > For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
> > corresponding to a turbo_freq/base_freq ratio of 5 (normally it's more like
> > 1500-2000). A large increment frequency for the MPERF counter would be 5GHz
> > (the base clock of all CPUs on the market today is less than that). With
> > these figures, a CPU would need to go without a scheduler tick for around 8
> > days for the u64 overflow to happen. It is unlikely, but the check is
> > warranted.
> >
> > In that case it's also appropriate to disable frequency invariant
> > accounting: the feature relies on measures of the clock frequency done at
> > every scheduler tick, which need to be "fresh" to be at all meaningful.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
> > Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
> > acnt <<= 2*SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> > mcnt *= arch_max_freq_ratio;
> > + if (!mcnt) {
>
> The problem is; this doesn't do what you claim it does.
>
> > + pr_warn("Scheduler tick missing for long time, disabling scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> > + /* static_branch_disable() acquires a lock and may sleep */
> > + schedule_work(&disable_freq_invariance_work);
> > + return;
> > + }
> >
> > freq_scale = div64_u64(acnt, mcnt);
>
> I've changed the patch like so.. OK?
>
> (ok, perhaps I went a little overboard with the paranoia ;-)

Right, I wasn't really checking for overflow, only for when the product
"mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio" becomes zero.

Thanks for your edit (I took note of the macros check_*_overflow, didn't know
them). I fully subscribe to the paranoid approach.

I understand you've already edited the patches in your tree, so I am not
resending, just confirming my

Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>

>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
> #include <linux/gfp.h>
> #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
> #include <linux/numa.h>
> +#include <linux/overflow.h>
>
> #include <asm/acpi.h>
> #include <asm/desc.h>
> @@ -2057,11 +2058,19 @@ static void init_freq_invariance(bool se
> }
> }
>
> +static void disable_freq_invariance_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + static_branch_disable(&arch_scale_freq_key);
> +}
> +
> +static DECLARE_WORK(disable_freq_invariance_work,
> + disable_freq_invariance_workfn);
> +
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, arch_freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>
> void arch_scale_freq_tick(void)
> {
> - u64 freq_scale;
> + u64 freq_scale = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
> u64 aperf, mperf;
> u64 acnt, mcnt;
>
> @@ -2073,19 +2082,27 @@ void arch_scale_freq_tick(void)
>
> acnt = aperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_aperf);
> mcnt = mperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_mperf);
> - if (!mcnt)
> - return;
>
> this_cpu_write(arch_prev_aperf, aperf);
> this_cpu_write(arch_prev_mperf, mperf);
>
> - acnt <<= 2*SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> - mcnt *= arch_max_freq_ratio;
> + if (check_shl_overflow(acnt, 2*SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, &acnt))
> + goto error;
> +
> + if (check_mul_overflow(mcnt, arch_max_freq_ratio, &mcnt) || !mcnt)
> + goto error;
>
> freq_scale = div64_u64(acnt, mcnt);
> + if (!freq_scale)
> + goto error;
>
> if (freq_scale > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> freq_scale = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>
> this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, freq_scale);
> + return;
> +
> +error:
> + pr_warn("Scheduler frequency invariance went wobbly, disabling!\n");
> + schedule_work(&disable_freq_invariance_work);
> }

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-02 16:26    [W:0.059 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site