From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yuyang.du@intel.com, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:57:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151211175751.GA27552@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <566AD6E1.2070005@virtuozzo.com>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 05:00:01PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
>
> On 12/11/2015 04:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:25:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 03:55:18PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >>> Make 'r' 64-bit type to avoid overflow in 'r * LOAD_AVG_MAX'
> >>> on 32-bit systems:
> >>> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in kernel/sched/fair.c:2785:18
> >>> signed integer overflow:
> >>> 87950 * 47742 cannot be represented in type 'int'
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 9d89c257dfb9 ("sched/fair: Rewrite runnable load and utilization average tracking")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >>> index e3266eb..733f0b8 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >>> @@ -2780,14 +2780,14 @@ static inline int update_cfs_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >>> int decayed, removed = 0;
> >>>
> >>> if (atomic_long_read(&cfs_rq->removed_load_avg)) {
> >>> - long r = atomic_long_xchg(&cfs_rq->removed_load_avg, 0);
> >>> + s64 r = atomic_long_xchg(&cfs_rq->removed_load_avg, 0);
> >>> sa->load_avg = max_t(long, sa->load_avg - r, 0);
> >>> sa->load_sum = max_t(s64, sa->load_sum - r * LOAD_AVG_MAX, 0);
> >>
> >> This makes sense, because sched_avg::load_sum is u64.
A single removed nice=-20 task should be sufficient to cause the
overflow.
> >>
> >>> removed = 1;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> if (atomic_long_read(&cfs_rq->removed_util_avg)) {
> >>> - long r = atomic_long_xchg(&cfs_rq->removed_util_avg, 0);
> >>> + s64 r = atomic_long_xchg(&cfs_rq->removed_util_avg, 0);
> >>> sa->util_avg = max_t(long, sa->util_avg - r, 0);
> >>> sa->util_sum = max_t(s32, sa->util_sum - r * LOAD_AVG_MAX, 0);
> >>> }
> >>
> >> However sched_avg::util_sum is u32, so this is still wrecked.
> >
> > I seems to have wrecked that in:
> >
> > 006cdf025a33 ("sched/fair: Optimize per entity utilization tracking")
> >
> > maybe just make util_load u64 too?
It isn't as bad, but the optimization does increase the normal range
(not guaranteed) for util_sum from 47742 to
scale_down(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE)*47742 (= 1024*47742, unless you mess with
the scaling).
> Is there any guarantee that the final result of expression 'util_sum - r * LOAD_AVG_MAX' always can be represented by s32?
>
> If yes, than we could just do this:
> max_t(s32, (u64)sa->util_sum - r * LOAD_AVG_MAX, 0)
In most cases 'r' shouldn't exceed 1024 and util_sum not significantly
exceed 1024*47742, but in extreme cases like spawning lots of new tasks
it may potentially overflow 32 bit. Newly created tasks contribute
1024*47742 each to the rq util_sum, which means that more than ~87 new
tasks on a single rq will get us in trouble I think.
Without Peter's optimization referenced above, that number should
increase to ~87k tasks as each task only contributed 47742 before, but
'r' could still cause 32-bit overflow if we remove more than ~87 newly
created tasks in one go. But I'm not sure if that is a situation we
should worry about?
I think we have to either make util_sum u64 too or look at the
optimizations again.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-11 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-11 12:55 Andrey Ryabinin
2015-12-11 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 14:00 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-12-11 17:57 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2015-12-11 18:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2015-12-11 19:18 ` bsegall
2015-12-13 21:02 ` Yuyang Du
2015-12-14 12:32 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-12-14 17:51 ` bsegall
2015-12-13 22:42 ` Yuyang Du
2015-12-14 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-14 13:07 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-12-14 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-14 14:46 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-12-15 2:22 ` Yuyang Du
2015-12-15 21:56 ` Steve Muckle
2015-12-18 2:33 ` Yuyang Du
2016-01-03 23:14 ` Yuyang Du
2015-12-11 17:58 ` bsegall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151211175751.GA27552@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=yuyang.du@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®