lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: fix a potential divide error
From
Date
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your comments.

On 2019/4/24 2:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 04:34:16PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> We meet a divide error on 3.10.0 kernel, the error message is bellow:
>
> That is a _realllllllyyyy_ old kernel. I would urge you to upgrade.

I will.

>
>> [499992.287996] divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP
>
>> sched_clock_cpu may not be consistent bwtwen cpus. If a task migrate
>> to another cpu, the se.exec_start was set to that cpu's rq_clock_task
>> by update_stats_curr_start(). Which may not be monotonic.
>>
>> update_stats_curr_start
>> <- set_next_entity
>> <- set_curr_task_fair
>> <- sched_move_task
>
> That is not in fact a cross-cpu migration path. But I see the point.
> Also many migration paths do in fact preserve monotonicity, even when
> the clock is busted, but you're right, not all of them.
>
>> So, if now - p->last_task_numa_placement is -1, then (*period + 1) is
>> 0, and divide error was triggerred at the div operation:
>> task_numa_placement:
>> runtime = numa_get_avg_runtime(p, &period);
>> f_weight = div64_u64(runtime << 16, period + 1); // divide error here
>>
>> In this patch, we make sure period is not less than 0 to avoid this
>> divide error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 40bd1e27b1b7..f2abb258fc85 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -2007,6 +2007,10 @@ static u64 numa_get_avg_runtime(struct task_struct *p, u64 *period)
>> if (p->last_task_numa_placement) {
>> delta = runtime - p->last_sum_exec_runtime;
>> *period = now - p->last_task_numa_placement;
>> +
>> + /* Avoid backward, and prevent potential divide error */
>> + if ((s64)*period < 0)
>> + *period = 0;
>> } else {
>> delta = p->se.avg.load_sum;
>> *period = LOAD_AVG_MAX;
>
> Yeah, I suppose that is indeed correct.
>
> I'll try and come up with a better Changelog tomorrow.

Thanks.

--
Thanks,
Xie XiuQi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-25 05:53    [W:0.062 / U:29.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site