On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:26:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:04:57PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > On systems with weaker memory ordering (e.g. power) commit dbfb089d360b
> > ("sched: Fix loadavg accounting race") causes increasing values of load
> > average (via rq->calc_load_active and calc_load_tasks) due to the wakeup
> > CPU not always seeing the write to task->sched_contributes_to_load in
> > __schedule(). Missing that we fail to decrement nr_uninterruptible when
> > waking up a task which incremented nr_uninterruptible when it slept.
> >
> > The rq->lock serialization is insufficient across different rq->locks.
> >
> > Add smp_wmb() to schedule and smp_rmb() before the read in
> > ttwu_do_activate().
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 4ca80df205ce..ced7074716eb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -2992,6 +2992,8 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags,
> >
> > lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> >
> > + /* Pairs with smp_wmb in __schedule() */
> > + smp_rmb();
> > if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
> > rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> >
>
> Is this really needed ?! (this question is a big fat clue the comment is
> insufficient). AFAICT try_to_wake_up() has a LOAD-ACQUIRE on p->on_rq
> and hence the p->sched_contributed_to_load must already happen after.
>
> > @@ -5084,6 +5086,11 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
> > !(prev_state & TASK_NOLOAD) &&
> > !(prev->flags & PF_FROZEN);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Make sure the previous write is ordered before p->on_rq etc so
> > + * that it is visible to other cpus in the wakeup path (ttwu_do_activate()).
> > + */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > if (prev->sched_contributes_to_load)
> > rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
>
> That comment is terrible, look at all the other barrier comments around
> there for clues; in effect you're worrying about:
>
> p->sched_contributes_to_load = X R1 = p->on_rq
> WMB RMB
> p->on_rq = Y R2 = p->sched_contributes_to_load
>
> Right?
>
>
> Bah bah bah.. I so detest having to add barriers here for silly
> accounting. Let me think about this a little.
I got the below:
__schedule() ttwu()
rq_lock() raw_spin_lock(&p->pi_lock)
smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_mb__after_spinlock();
p->sched_contributes_to_load = X; if (READ_ONCE(p->on_rq) && ...)
goto unlock;
smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL)
deactivate_task()
p->on_rq = 0;
context_switch()
finish_task_switch()
finish_task()
smp_store_release(p->on_cpu, 0);
ttwu_queue()
rq_lock()
ttwu_do_activate()
if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
...
rq_unlock()
raw_spin_unlock(&p->pi_lock);
finish_lock_switch()
rq_unlock();
The only way for ttwu() to end up in an enqueue, is if it did a
LOAD-ACQUIRE on ->on_cpu, but that orders with the STORE-RELEASE on the
same, which ensures the p->sched_contributes_to_load LOAD must happen
after the STORE.
What am I missing? Your Changelog/comments provide insufficient clues..
