Re: 答复: [PATCH][RFC] sched/cpuacct: Fix cpuacct charge

[Daniel Jordan]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 08:16:54AM +0000, Li,Rongqing wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:04:41PM +0800, Li RongQing wrote:
> > > get_irq_regs only work for current running cpu, but the task, whose
> > > cpuacct will be charged, maybe run different cpu, like Cpu 2 wake up a
> > > kernel thread to CPU 3, cause CPU 3 task are charged with the
> > > following stack
> > >
> > >   cpuacct_charge+0xd8/0x100
> > >   update_curr+0xe1/0x1e0
> > >   enqueue_entity+0x144/0x6e0
> > >   enqueue_task_fair+0x93/0x900
> > >   ttwu_do_activate+0x4b/0x90
> > >   try_to_wake_up+0x20b/0x530
> > >   ? update_dl_rq_load_avg+0x10f/0x210
> > >   swake_up_locked.part.1+0x13/0x40
> > >   swake_up_one+0x27/0x40
> > >   rcu_process_callbacks+0x484/0x4f0
> > >   ? run_rebalance_domains_bt+0x5a/0x180
> > >   __do_softirq+0xe3/0x308
> > >   irq_exit+0xf0/0x100
> > >   smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x74/0x160
> > >   apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
> > >   </IRQ>
> > >  RIP: 0033:0x456947
> > >
> > > so define a get_irq_regs_cpu which returns the required cpu irq
> > > registers
> > >
> > > BUT it should be not safe, and do not know what it should be like in MIPS?
> > >
> > > Fixes: dbe9337109c2 "(sched/cpuacct: Fix charge cpuacct.usage_sys)"
> > > Co-developed-by: Zhao Jie <zhaojie17@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Jie <zhaojie17@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  include/asm-generic/irq_regs.h | 5 +++++
> > >  kernel/sched/cpuacct.c         | 3 ++-
> > >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/irq_regs.h
> > > b/include/asm-generic/irq_regs.h index 2e7c6e8..93e2579 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/irq_regs.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/irq_regs.h
> > > @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ static inline struct pt_regs *get_irq_regs(void)
> > >   return __this_cpu_read(__irq_regs);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static inline struct pt_regs *get_irq_regs_cpu(int cpu) {
> > > + return per_cpu(__irq_regs, cpu);
> > > +}
> > 
> > This primitive just cannot be right... it'll get you some random data.
> 
> True
> 
> Seem no easy to fix. How about a partial fix
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> index 893eece..48b117e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> @@ -340,7 +340,12 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
>  {
>         struct cpuacct *ca;
>         int index = CPUACCT_STAT_SYSTEM;
> -       struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs() ? : task_pt_regs(tsk);
> +       struct pt_regs *regs;
> +
> +       if (task_cpu(tsk) == raw_smp_processor_id())
> +               regs = get_irq_regs() ? : task_pt_regs(tsk);
> +       else
> +               regs = task_pt_regs(tsk);
> 
>         if (regs && user_mode(regs))
>                 index = CPUACCT_STAT_USER;

It still suffers from task_pt_regs().

Why not make cpuacct use cgroup2's approach?  Remember only delta_exec
here, then on reading cpuacct.usage_*, use cputime_adjust() to scale the
user/sys from cpuacct_account_field().

It's arguably more than just a fix for cgroup1, but there have been a
few complaints about this function lately.

>         rcu_read_lock();
> 
>         for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca; ca = parent_ca(ca))
>               __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
> 
>         rcu_read_unlock();

By the way, I think the __this_cpu_add() can be wrong in cases like you
originally describe.  Seems like a bug in 73e6aafd9ea8 ("sched/cpuacct:
Simplify the cpuacct code").