Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: do not announce throttled next buddy in dequeue_task_fair

[Wanpeng Li]

2016-07-15 1:54 GMT+08:00  <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 2016-07-14 1:06 GMT+08:00  <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> 2016-07-13 1:25 GMT+08:00  <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11.07.2016 15:12, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016/07/11 at 17:54, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Konstantin, Xunlei,
>>>>>>>> 2016-07-11 16:42 GMT+08:00 Xunlei Pang <xpang@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>>> On 2016/07/11 at 16:22, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/07/11 at 15:25, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-06-16 20:57 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hierarchy could be already throttled at this point. Throttled next
>>>>>>>>>>>> buddy could trigger null pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair().
>>>>>>>>>>> There is cfs_rq->next check in pick_next_entity(), so how can null
>>>>>>>>>>> pointer dereference happen?
>>>>>>>>>> I guess it's the following code leading to a NULL se returned:
>>>>>>>>> s/NULL/empty-entity cfs_rq se/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pick_next_entity():
>>>>>>>>>>      if (cfs_rq->next && wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->next, left) < 1)
>>>>>>>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>> I think this will return false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the wrong throttled_hierarchy(), I think this can happen. But after we have the
>>>>>>> corrected throttled_hierarchy() patch, I can't see how it is possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dequeue_task_fair():
>>>>>>>      if (task_sleep && parent_entity(se))
>>>>>>>          set_next_buddy(parent_entity(se));
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does dequeue_task_fair() with DEQUEUE_SLEEP set(true task_sleep) happen to a throttled hierarchy?
>>>>>>> IOW, a task belongs to a throttled hierarchy is running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Konstantin knows the reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This function (dequeue_task_fair) check throttling but at point it could skip several
>>>>>> levels and announce as next buddy actually throttled entry.
>>>>>> Probably this bug hadn't happened but this's really hard to prove that this is impossible.
>>>>>> ->set_curr_task(), PI-boost or some tricky migration in balancer could break this easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> sched_setscheduler can call put_prev_task, which then can cause a
>>>>> throttle outside of __schedule(), then the task blocks normally and
>>>>> deactivate_task(DEQUEUE_SLEEP) happens and you lose.
>>>>
>>>> The cfs_rq_throttled() check in dequeue_task_fair() will capture the
>>>> cfs_rq which is throttled in sched_setscheduler::put_prev_task path,
>>>> so nothing lost, where I miss?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Wanpeng Li
>>>
>>> The cfs_rq_throttled() checks there are done bottom-up, so they will
>>> trigger too late. a/b/t, where t is descheduling and a is throttled can
>>> still cause a set_next_buddy(b);
>>
>> throttle cfs_rq is up-bottom, so when a is throttled, b and c are not
>> yet, then task_sleep && se && !throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq) still can't
>> prevent a set_next_buddy(b).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wanpeng Li
>
> They don't race or anything, everything's under rq->lock.
> throttled_hierarchy will register properly, the issue is that a parent
> is the one cfs_rq_throttled(), not the current cfs_rq, and
> set_next_buddy will set cfs_rq->next to an se that is !on_rq.

Why b is !on_rq after throttle a?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li