lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Fix wrong warning check in rq_clock_start_loop_update()
From


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);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-07 10:46    [W:0.065 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site