Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] x86/resctrl: Fix task CLOSID/RMID update race

From: Reinette Chatre
Date: Thu Dec 15 2022 - 18:52:18 EST


Hi Peter,

On 12/14/2022 3:44 AM, Peter Newman wrote:
> When the user moves a running task to a new rdtgroup using the tasks
> file interface or by deleting its rdtgroup, the resulting change in
> CLOSID/RMID must be immediately propagated to the PQR_ASSOC MSR on the
> task(s) CPUs.
>
> x86 allows reordering loads with prior stores, so if the task starts
> running between a task_curr() check that the CPU hoisted before the
> stores in the CLOSID/RMID update then it can start running with the old
> CLOSID/RMID until it is switched again because __rdtgroup_move_task()
> failed to determine that it needs to be interrupted to obtain the new
> CLOSID/RMID.
>
> Refer to the diagram below:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----
> __rdtgroup_move_task():
> curr <- t1->cpu->rq->curr
> __schedule():
> rq->curr <- t1
> resctrl_sched_in():
> t1->{closid,rmid} -> {1,1}
> t1->{closid,rmid} <- {2,2}
> if (curr == t1) // false
> IPI(t1->cpu)
>
> A similar race impacts rdt_move_group_tasks(), which updates tasks in a
> deleted rdtgroup.
>
> In both cases, use smp_mb() to order the task_struct::{closid,rmid}
> stores before the loads in task_curr(). In particular, in the
> rdt_move_group_tasks() case, simply execute an smp_mb() on every
> iteration with a matching task.
>
> It is possible to use a single smp_mb() in rdt_move_group_tasks(), but
> this would require two passes and a means of remembering which
> task_structs were updated in the first loop. However, benchmarking
> results below showed too little performance impact in the simple
> approach to justify implementing the two-pass approach.
>
> Times below were collected using `perf stat` to measure the time to
> remove a group containing a 1600-task, parallel workload.
>
> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum P-8136 CPU @ 2.00GHz (112 threads)
>
> # mkdir /sys/fs/resctrl/test
> # echo $$ > /sys/fs/resctrl/test/tasks
> # perf bench sched messaging -g 40 -l 100000
>
> task-clock time ranges collected using:
>
> # perf stat rmdir /sys/fs/resctrl/test
>
> Baseline: 1.54 - 1.60 ms
> smp_mb() every matching task: 1.57 - 1.67 ms
>

For a fix a Fixes: tag is expected. It looks like the following
may be relevant:
Fixes: ae28d1aae48a ("x86/resctrl: Use an IPI instead of task_work_add() to update PQR_ASSOC MSR")
Fixes: 0efc89be9471 ("x86/intel_rdt: Update task closid immediately on CPU in rmdir and unmount")

> Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>

Also, please do let the stable team know about this via:
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> ---

There is no need to submit with a cover letter, but please do keep the history with this patch
by including it here below the "---".

> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> index e5a48f05e787..5993da21d822 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> @@ -580,8 +580,10 @@ static int __rdtgroup_move_task(struct task_struct *tsk,
> /*
> * Ensure the task's closid and rmid are written before determining if
> * the task is current that will decide if it will be interrupted.
> + * This pairs with the full barrier between the rq->curr update and
> + * resctrl_sched_in() during context switch.
> */
> - barrier();
> + smp_mb();
>
> /*
> * By now, the task's closid and rmid are set. If the task is current
> @@ -2401,6 +2403,14 @@ static void rdt_move_group_tasks(struct rdtgroup *from, struct rdtgroup *to,
> WRITE_ONCE(t->closid, to->closid);
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rmid, to->mon.rmid);
>
> + /*
> + * Order the closid/rmid stores above before the loads
> + * in task_curr(). This pairs with the full barrier
> + * between the rq->curr update and resctrl_sched_in()
> + * during context switch.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> /*
> * If the task is on a CPU, set the CPU in the mask.
> * The detection is inaccurate as tasks might move or


Thank you very much for sticking with this and always paying attention
to the details along the way.

Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>

Reinette