Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/debug: Fix avg_vruntime() usage

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 04:13:06PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 at 15:24, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and
> > managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix
> > zero_vruntime tracking").
> >
> > The commit in question changes avg_vruntime() from a function that is
> > a pure reader, to a function that updates variables. This turns an
> > unlocked sched/debug usage of this function from a minor mistake into
> > a data corruptor.
> >
> > Fixes: af4cf40470c2 ("sched/fair: Add cfs_rq::avg_vruntime")
> > Fixes: b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking")
> > Reported-by: John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@xxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/debug.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > @@ -902,6 +902,7 @@ static void print_rq(struct seq_file *m,
> >  void print_cfs_rq(struct seq_file *m, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >  {
> >         s64 left_vruntime = -1, zero_vruntime, right_vruntime = -1, left_deadline = -1, spread;
> > +       u64 avruntime;
> >         struct sched_entity *last, *first, *root;
> >         struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> >         unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -925,6 +926,7 @@ void print_cfs_rq(struct seq_file *m, in
> >         if (last)
> >                 right_vruntime = last->vruntime;
> >         zero_vruntime = cfs_rq->zero_vruntime;
> > +       avruntime = avg_vruntime(cfs_rq);
> 
> Minor comment:
> Do you intentionally save zero_vruntime before callling avg_vruntime()
> which will update zero_vruntime ?
> That could make sense to take a snapshot before being modified by
> print_cfs_rq() but I'm afraid the call to debugfs will anyway trigger
> an update before we save and display the value

Intentional might be a big word, but yeah, printing the same value twice
seemed pointless. This way you can at least see where it came from or
something.

> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!