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

[Wanpeng Li]

2016-07-15 6:49 GMT+08:00  <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 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
>
> a is !on_rq (because of throttle), but set_next_buddy will set ->next up
> the entire tree.

Got it, thanks for your explanation. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li