From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/uclamp: Fix race condition leading to imbalanced uclamp_rq
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:13:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <97ab857d-9d9e-40d4-a243-253d1c2e411f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261028020512.10245-2-qyousef@layalina.io>
On 10/28/26 02:05, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Static keys are not guaranteed to be enabled atomically across CPUs.
> Which means when sched_uclamp_used is enabled, some CPUs will return
> true for uclamp_is_used() while others won't, leading to asymmetric
> ulcamp_rq_{inc, dec}_id. If we decrement without increment this is safe
> as documented in the code. But an increment without a decrement is
> a problem and will leave the uclamp_rq in a corrupt state.
>
> The race for increment without a decrement is interesting as it means
> a CPU has seen the static key flipped and incremented while enqueueing
> a task, but the task was dequeued on another CPU that hasn't seen the
> static key flipped - we need to be wary this might be a symptom of
> something else going wrong.
>
> Plugging the race is hard as discussed in [1]. Take it for granted and
> do correction actions on going to idle to guarantee this state is
> transient for a short period after uclamp_sched_used is enabled.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CANDhNCqyXsZ6G77z+9s=rTO6BZifRG9+hVxMTah+tAv6pB6h3w@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Reported-by: Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
> Fixes: 46609ce227039 ("sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key")
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> kernel/sched/idle.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index d7c3b43158dea..c6780358a7975 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2111,7 +2111,7 @@ static void uclamp_post_fork(struct task_struct *p)
> uclamp_update_util_min_rt_default(p);
> }
>
> -static void __init init_uclamp_rq(struct rq *rq)
> +void init_uclamp_rq(struct rq *rq)
> {
> enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
> struct uclamp_rq *uc_rq = rq->uclamp;
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> index 76f3c84ca6846..c722b23e07dc2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> @@ -502,6 +502,23 @@ static void set_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, enum snt
> * lost_idle_time of clock_pelt
> */
> update_idle_rq_clock_pelt(rq);
> +
> + /*
> + * Due to a race condition when enabling sched_uclamp_used static key,
> + * we can end up with imbalance where uclamp_rq_inc_id() has happened
> + * on a CPU without uclamp_rq_dec_id() on another CPU that hasn't seen
> + * the static key flipped. The race condition is unlikely, but ensure
> + * the uclamp_rq() state is set properly on each entry to idle.
> + *
> + * The reset will cause the uclamp_max from uclamp_idle_value() to be
> + * lost. Since we are imbalanced, hard to know what is right. So just
> + * cleanup. This should be a transient error state once we recover
> + * everything should work as expected.
> + */
> + if (uclamp_is_used()) {
> + if (unlikely(!uclamp_rq_is_idle(rq)))
> + init_uclamp_rq(rq);
> + }
> }
>
I haven't checked the other cases, but sashiko notes a few issues with this.
The sched_ext one and the core-scheduling cases seem legitimate, i.e. the idle
task may be scheduled while the rq actually isn't idle and clamps should be
maintained?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-28 2:05 [PATCH v3 0/2] Fix uclamp race against non atomic static key enable Qais Yousef
2026-10-28 2:05 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/uclamp: Fix race condition leading to imbalanced uclamp_rq Qais Yousef
2026-10-28 10:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-28 11:12 ` Qais Yousef
2026-10-28 11:13 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2026-10-28 12:09 ` Qais Yousef
2026-10-29 12:57 ` Qais Yousef
2026-10-28 17:18 ` John Stultz
2026-10-29 12:51 ` Qais Yousef
2026-10-28 2:05 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/uclamp: Use wrappers instead of open coding UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE Qais Yousef
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=97ab857d-9d9e-40d4-a243-253d1c2e411f@arm.com \
--to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wvw@google.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®