* [PATCH 1/2] posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process tick
2021-07-15 10:42 [GIT PULL] timers fixes Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2021-07-15 10:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-15 10:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] timers: Fix get_next_timer_interrupt() with no timers pending Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-20 10:55 ` [tip: timers/urgent] Merge branch 'timers/urgent' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks into timers/urgent tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2021-07-15 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar
Cc: LKML, Frederic Weisbecker, Peter Zijlstra, Eric W . Biederman,
Oleg Nesterov, stable, Nicolas Saenz Julienne
Since the process wide cputime counter is started locklessly from
posix_cpu_timer_rearm(), it can be concurrently stopped by operations
on other timers from the same thread group, such as in the following
unlucky scenario:
CPU 0 CPU 1
----- -----
timer_settime(TIMER B)
posix_cpu_timer_rearm(TIMER A)
cpu_clock_sample_group()
(pct->timers_active already true)
handle_posix_cpu_timers()
check_process_timers()
stop_process_timers()
pct->timers_active = false
arm_timer(TIMER A)
tick -> run_posix_cpu_timers()
// sees !pct->timers_active, ignore
// our TIMER A
Fix this with simply locking process wide cputime counting start and
timer arm in the same block.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Fixes: 60f2ceaa8111 ("posix-cpu-timers: Remove unnecessary locking around cpu_clock_sample_group")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
---
kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
index 29a5e54e6e10..517be7fd175e 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -991,6 +991,11 @@ static void posix_cpu_timer_rearm(struct k_itimer *timer)
if (!p)
goto out;
+ /* Protect timer list r/w in arm_timer() */
+ sighand = lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
+ if (unlikely(sighand == NULL))
+ goto out;
+
/*
* Fetch the current sample and update the timer's expiry time.
*/
@@ -1001,11 +1006,6 @@ static void posix_cpu_timer_rearm(struct k_itimer *timer)
bump_cpu_timer(timer, now);
- /* Protect timer list r/w in arm_timer() */
- sighand = lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
- if (unlikely(sighand == NULL))
- goto out;
-
/*
* Now re-arm for the new expiry time.
*/
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/2] timers: Fix get_next_timer_interrupt() with no timers pending
2021-07-15 10:42 [GIT PULL] timers fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-15 10:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process tick Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2021-07-15 10:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-20 10:55 ` [tip: timers/urgent] Merge branch 'timers/urgent' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks into timers/urgent tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2021-07-15 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar
Cc: LKML, Nicolas Saenz Julienne, Peter Zijlstra, Eric W . Biederman,
Oleg Nesterov, Frederic Weisbecker, stable
From: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>
31cd0e119d50 ("timers: Recalculate next timer interrupt only when
necessary") subtly altered get_next_timer_interrupt()'s behaviour. The
function no longer consistently returns KTIME_MAX with no timers
pending.
In order to decide if there are any timers pending we check whether the
next expiry will happen NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA jiffies from now.
Unfortunately, the next expiry time and the timer base clock are no
longer updated in unison. The former changes upon certain timer
operations (enqueue, expire, detach), whereas the latter keeps track of
jiffies as they move forward. Ultimately breaking the logic above.
A simplified example:
- Upon entering get_next_timer_interrupt() with:
jiffies = 1
base->clk = 0;
base->next_expiry = NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
'base->next_expiry == base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA', the function
returns KTIME_MAX.
- 'base->clk' is updated to the jiffies value.
- The next time we enter get_next_timer_interrupt(), taking into account
no timer operations happened:
base->clk = 1;
base->next_expiry = NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
'base->next_expiry != base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA', the function
returns a valid expire time, which is incorrect.
This ultimately might unnecessarily rearm sched's timer on nohz_full
setups, and add latency to the system[1].
So, introduce 'base->timers_pending'[2], update it every time
'base->next_expiry' changes, and use it in get_next_timer_interrupt().
[1] See tick_nohz_stop_tick().
[2] A quick pahole check on x86_64 and arm64 shows it doesn't make
'struct timer_base' any bigger.
Fixes: 31cd0e119d50 ("timers: Recalculate next timer interrupt only when necessary")
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 3fadb58fc9d7..9eb11c2209e5 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ struct timer_base {
unsigned int cpu;
bool next_expiry_recalc;
bool is_idle;
+ bool timers_pending;
DECLARE_BITMAP(pending_map, WHEEL_SIZE);
struct hlist_head vectors[WHEEL_SIZE];
} ____cacheline_aligned;
@@ -595,6 +596,7 @@ static void enqueue_timer(struct timer_base *base, struct timer_list *timer,
* can reevaluate the wheel:
*/
base->next_expiry = bucket_expiry;
+ base->timers_pending = true;
base->next_expiry_recalc = false;
trigger_dyntick_cpu(base, timer);
}
@@ -1582,6 +1584,7 @@ static unsigned long __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
}
base->next_expiry_recalc = false;
+ base->timers_pending = !(next == base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA);
return next;
}
@@ -1633,7 +1636,6 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long basej, u64 basem)
struct timer_base *base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);
u64 expires = KTIME_MAX;
unsigned long nextevt;
- bool is_max_delta;
/*
* Pretend that there is no timer pending if the cpu is offline.
@@ -1646,7 +1648,6 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long basej, u64 basem)
if (base->next_expiry_recalc)
base->next_expiry = __next_timer_interrupt(base);
nextevt = base->next_expiry;
- is_max_delta = (nextevt == base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA);
/*
* We have a fresh next event. Check whether we can forward the
@@ -1664,7 +1665,7 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long basej, u64 basem)
expires = basem;
base->is_idle = false;
} else {
- if (!is_max_delta)
+ if (base->timers_pending)
expires = basem + (u64)(nextevt - basej) * TICK_NSEC;
/*
* If we expect to sleep more than a tick, mark the base idle.
@@ -1947,6 +1948,7 @@ int timers_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
base = per_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[b], cpu);
base->clk = jiffies;
base->next_expiry = base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
+ base->timers_pending = false;
base->is_idle = false;
}
return 0;
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread