From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix nr_uninterruptible race causing increasing load average
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:54:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOavHgRUBM6cc95s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOatszHNZc9XRbYB@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:48:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:26:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:04:57PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > On systems with weaker memory ordering (e.g. power) commit dbfb089d360b
> > > ("sched: Fix loadavg accounting race") causes increasing values of load
> > > average (via rq->calc_load_active and calc_load_tasks) due to the wakeup
> > > CPU not always seeing the write to task->sched_contributes_to_load in
> > > __schedule(). Missing that we fail to decrement nr_uninterruptible when
> > > waking up a task which incremented nr_uninterruptible when it slept.
> > >
> > > The rq->lock serialization is insufficient across different rq->locks.
> > >
> > > Add smp_wmb() to schedule and smp_rmb() before the read in
> > > ttwu_do_activate().
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 4ca80df205ce..ced7074716eb 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -2992,6 +2992,8 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
> > >
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> > >
> > > + /* Pairs with smp_wmb in __schedule() */
> > > + smp_rmb();
> > > if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
> > > rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> > >
> >
> > Is this really needed ?! (this question is a big fat clue the comment is
> > insufficient). AFAICT try_to_wake_up() has a LOAD-ACQUIRE on p->on_rq
> > and hence the p->sched_contributed_to_load must already happen after.
> >
> > > @@ -5084,6 +5086,11 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
> > > !(prev_state & TASK_NOLOAD) &&
> > > !(prev->flags & PF_FROZEN);
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Make sure the previous write is ordered before p->on_rq etc so
> > > + * that it is visible to other cpus in the wakeup path (ttwu_do_activate()).
> > > + */
> > > + smp_wmb();
> > > if (prev->sched_contributes_to_load)
> > > rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
> >
> > That comment is terrible, look at all the other barrier comments around
> > there for clues; in effect you're worrying about:
> >
> > p->sched_contributes_to_load = X R1 = p->on_rq
> > WMB RMB
> > p->on_rq = Y R2 = p->sched_contributes_to_load
> >
> > Right?
> >
> >
> > Bah bah bah.. I so detest having to add barriers here for silly
> > accounting. Let me think about this a little.
>
> I got the below:
>
> __schedule() ttwu()
>
> rq_lock() raw_spin_lock(&p->pi_lock)
> smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>
> p->sched_contributes_to_load = X; if (READ_ONCE(p->on_rq) && ...)
> goto unlock;
> smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
>
> smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL)
>
> deactivate_task()
> p->on_rq = 0;
>
> context_switch()
> finish_task_switch()
> finish_task()
> smp_store_release(p->on_cpu, 0);
>
> ttwu_queue()
> rq_lock()
> ttwu_do_activate()
> if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
> ...
> rq_unlock()
> raw_spin_unlock(&p->pi_lock);
> finish_lock_switch()
> rq_unlock();
>
>
>
> The only way for ttwu() to end up in an enqueue, is if it did a
> LOAD-ACQUIRE on ->on_cpu,
That's not completely true; there's the WF_ON_CPU case, but in that
scenario we IPI the CPU doing __schedule and it becomes simple UP/PO and
everything must trivially work.
> but that orders with the STORE-RELEASE on the
> same, which ensures the p->sched_contributes_to_load LOAD must happen
> after the STORE.
>
> What am I missing? Your Changelog/comments provide insufficient clues..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-08 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-07 19:04 [PATCH] sched: Fix nr_uninterruptible race causing increasing load average Phil Auld
2021-07-08 7:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 7:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-08 7:54 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-07-08 14:54 ` Phil Auld
2021-07-09 12:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-11 13:19 ` Phil Auld
2021-07-08 13:25 ` Phil Auld
2021-07-09 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-11 12:57 ` Phil Auld
2021-07-23 13:38 ` Phil Auld
2021-07-28 15:45 ` Phil Auld
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YOavHgRUBM6cc95s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).