On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:48:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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,
That's not completely true; there's the WF_ON_CPU case, but in that
scenario we IPI the CPU doing __schedule and it becomes simple UP/PO and
everything must trivially work.
> 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..
