Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 7 Oct 2023 16:44:46 +0800 | Subject | Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Fix wrong warning check in rq_clock_start_loop_update() | From | Hao Jia <> |
| |
On 2023/9/28 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:24:24PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote: >> Igor Raits and Bagas Sanjaya report a RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning. >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/a5dd536d-041a-2ce9-f4b7-64d8d85c86dc@gmail.com >> >> Commit ebb83d84e49b54 ("sched/core: Avoid multiple >> calling update_rq_clock() in __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()") >> add RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning in rq_clock_start_loop_update(). >> But this warning is inaccurate and may be triggered >> incorrectly in the following situations: >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> >> __schedule() >> *rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;* unregister_fair_sched_group() >> pick_next_task_fair+0x4a/0x410 destroy_cfs_bandwidth() >> newidle_balance+0x115/0x3e0 for_each_possible_cpu(i) *i=0* >> rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf) __cfsb_csd_unthrottle() > if (rq->clock_update_flags > RQCF_ACT_SKIP) > rf->clock_update_flags = RQCF_UPDATED; > > so that preserves all flags, but only stores UPDATED. > >> raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq) >> rq_lock(*CPU0_rq*, &rf) > rq_pin_lock() > rq->clock_update_flags &= (REQ_SKIP|ACT_SKIP); > rf->clock_update_flags = 0; > > IOW, we preserve ACT_SKIP from CPU0 > >> rq_clock_start_loop_update() >> rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP <-- > > And go SPLAT > >> >> raw_spin_rq_lock(this_rq) > rq_repin_lock() > rq->clock_update_flags |= rf->clock_update_flags; > > which restores UPDATED, even though in reality time could have moved on > quite significantly. > > > Anyway.... > > the purpose of ACT_SKIP is to skip the update (clue in name etc), but > the update is very early in __schedule(), but we clear *_SKIP very late, > causing it to span that gap above. > > Going by the commits that put it there, the thinking was to clear > clock_skip_update before unlock, but AFAICT we can clear SKIP flags > right after the update_rq_clock() we're wanting to skip, no? >
Thanks for your review, and I am very sorry to reply to you so late. I just came back from a long vacation.
> That is, would not something like the below make more sense?
If we understand correctly, this may not work.
After applying this patch, the following situation will trigger the rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP warning.
If rq_clock_skip_update() is called before __schedule(), so RQCF_REQ_SKIP of rq->clock_update_flags is set.
__schedule() { rq_lock(rq, &rf); [rq->clock_update_flags is RQCF_REQ_SKIP] rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1; update_rq_clock(rq); [rq->clock_update_flags is RQCF_ACT_SKIP] + rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP); * At this time, rq->clock_update_flags = 0; *
pick_next_task_fair set_next_entity update_load_avg assert_clock_updated() <--- }
assert_clock_updated() will determine whether rq->clock_update_flags is less than RQCF_ACT_SKIP. If we clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP prematurely, this assert may be triggered later.
> > --- > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index d8fd29d66b24..bfd2ab4b95da 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -5357,8 +5357,6 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, > /* switch_mm_cid() requires the memory barriers above. */ > switch_mm_cid(rq, prev, next); > > - rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP); > - > prepare_lock_switch(rq, next, rf); > > /* Here we just switch the register state and the stack. */ > @@ -6596,6 +6594,8 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode) > /* Promote REQ to ACT */ > rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1; > update_rq_clock(rq); > + rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP); > + > > switch_count = &prev->nivcsw; > > @@ -6675,8 +6675,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode) > /* Also unlocks the rq: */ > rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf); > } else { > - rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP); > - > rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf); > __balance_callbacks(rq); > raw_spin_rq_unlock_irq(rq);
| |