From: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@baidu.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"vschneid@redhat.com" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
"dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: 答复: [????] Re: [????] Re: divide error in x86 and cputime
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 00:10:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <92674f89641f466b9ebbdf7681614ed3@baidu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250707195318.0c7f401d@gandalf.local.home>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 23:41:14 +0000
> "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@baidu.com> wrote:
>
> > > On a second thought, this
> > >
> > > mul_u64_u64_div_u64(0x69f98da9ba980c00, 0xfffd213aabd74626,
> > > 0x09e00900);
> > > stime rtime
> > > stime + utime
> > >
> > > looks suspicious:
> > >
> > > - stime > stime + utime
> > >
> > > - rtime = 0xfffd213aabd74626 is absurdly huge
> > >
> > > so perhaps there is another problem?
> > >
> >
> > it happened when a process with 236 busy polling threads , run about
> > 904 days, the total time will overflow the 64bit
> >
> > non-x86 system maybe has same issue, once (stime + utime) overflows
> > 64bit, mul_u64_u64_div_u64 from lib/math/div64.c maybe cause division
> > by 0
> >
> > so to cputime, could cputime_adjust() return stime if stime if stime +
> > utime is overflow
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c index
> > 6dab4854..db0c273 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> > @@ -579,6 +579,10 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr,
> struct prev_cputime *prev,
> > goto update;
> > }
> >
> > + if (stime > (stime + utime)) {
> > + goto update;
> > + }
> > +
> > stime = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
> > /*
> > * Because mul_u64_u64_div_u64() can approximate on some
> >
>
> Are you running 5.10.0? Because a diff of 5.10.238 from 5.10.0 gives:
>
> @@ -579,6 +579,12 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr, struct
> prev_cputime *prev,
> }
>
> stime = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
> + /*
> + * Because mul_u64_u64_div_u64() can approximate on some
> + * achitectures; enforce the constraint that: a*b/(b+c) <= a.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(stime > rtime))
> + stime = rtime;
My 5.10 has not this patch " sched/cputime: Fix mul_u64_u64_div_u64() precision for cputime ",
but I am sure this patch can not fix this overflow issue, Since division error happened in mul_u64_u64_div_u64()
Thanks
-Li
>
> update:
>
>
> Thus the result is what's getting screwed up.
>
> -- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-08 0:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 8:14 Li,Rongqing
2025-07-07 15:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-07 22:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-07 22:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-07 22:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-07 23:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-08 11:00 ` David Laight
2025-07-08 1:40 ` 答复: [????] " Li,Rongqing
2025-07-08 1:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-08 1:58 ` 答复: [????] " Li,Rongqing
2025-07-08 2:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-08 2:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-08 9:58 ` David Laight
2025-07-07 22:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-07-07 23:41 ` 答复: [????] " Li,Rongqing
2025-07-07 23:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-08 0:10 ` Li,Rongqing [this message]
2025-07-08 0:30 ` [????] " Steven Rostedt
2025-07-08 1:17 ` 答复: [????] " Li,Rongqing
2025-07-08 1:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-08 10:35 ` [????] Re: [????] " David Laight
2025-07-08 11:12 ` 答复: [????] " Li,Rongqing
2025-07-08 0:23 ` 答复: " Li,Rongqing
2026-01-04 13:23 ` Xia Fukun
2026-01-04 14:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-01-04 18:15 ` David Laight
2026-01-04 20:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-01-04 22:03 ` David Laight
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=92674f89641f466b9ebbdf7681614ed3@baidu.com \
--to=lirongqing@baidu.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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®