Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/eevdf: Return leftmost entity in pick_eevdf() if no eligible entity is found

Xuewen Yan
2024-02-29T12:10:44Z

Hi Yu

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:25 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xuewen,
>
> On 2024-02-28 at 17:04:49 +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > Hi Yu
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 4:26 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is occasional report from lkp that the kernel hits the NULL pointer
> > > exception:
> > >
> > > [ 512.079810][ T8305] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000002c
> > > [ 512.080897][ T8305] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> > > [ 512.081636][ T8305] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> > > [ 512.082337][ T8305] *pde = 00000000
> > > [ 512.082829][ T8305] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> > > [ 512.083407][ T8305] CPU: 1 PID: 8305 Comm: watchdog Tainted: G W
> > > [ 512.086203][ T8305] EIP: set_next_entity (fair.c:?)
> > >
> > > This is caused by NULL candidate returned by pick_eevdf() as Abel analyzed.
> > > After
> > > commit 2227a957e1d5 ("sched/eevdf: Sort the rbtree by virtual deadline")
> > > the NULL candidate would trigger the NULL pointer exception. While before
> > > this commit, there would be warning.
> > >
> > > This NULL entity issue was always there before above commit. With debug
> > > patch to print the cfs_rq and all the entities in the tree, we have the
> > > information when the issue was reproduced:
> > >
> > > [ 514.461242][ T8390] cfs_rq avg_vruntime:386638640128 avg_load:2048 min_vruntime:763383370431
> > > [ 514.535935][ T8390] current on_rq se 0xc5851400, deadline:18435852013562231446
> > > min_vruntime:18437121115753667698 vruntime:18435852013561943404, load:629
> > > [ 514.536772][ T8390] Traverse rb-tree from left to right
> > > [ 514.537138][ T8390] se 0xec1234e0 deadline:763384870431 min_vruntime:763383370431 vruntime:763383370431 non-eligible
> > > [ 514.537835][ T8390] se 0xec4fcf20 deadline:763762447228 min_vruntime:763760947228 vruntime:763760947228 non-eligible
> > > [ 514.538539][ T8390] Traverse rb-tree from topdown
> > > [ 514.538877][ T8390] middle se 0xec1234e0 deadline:763384870431 min_vruntime:763383370431 vruntime:763383370431 non-eligible
> > > [ 514.539605][ T8390] middle se 0xec4fcf20 deadline:763762447228 min_vruntime:763760947228 vruntime:763760947228 non-eligible
> > > [ 514.540340][ T8390] Found best:0x0
> > > [ 514.540613][ T8390] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 00000074
> > >
> > > We can see that non of the entities in the tree are eligible, neither is
> > > the current entity on this cfs_rq. As a result, curr is set to NULL:
> > > if (curr && (!curr->on_rq || !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, curr)))
> > > curr = NULL;
> > >
> > > and the best is set to NULL, which caused the problem:
> > > if (!best || (curr && entity_before(curr, best)))
> > > best = curr;
> > >
> > > The cause is that, the curr is eligible, but vruntime_eligible()
> > > returns false. And the false negative is due to the following
> > > code in vruntime_eligible():
> > >
> > > return avg >= (s64)(vruntime - cfs_rq->min_vruntime) * load;
> > >
> > > According to the log, vruntime is 18435852013561943404, the
> > > cfs_rq->min_vruntime is 763383370431, the load is 629 + 2048 = 2677,
> > > thus:
> > > s64 delta = (s64)(18435852013561943404 - 763383370431) = -10892823530978643
> > > delta * 2677 = 7733399554989275921
> > > that is to say, the multiply result overflow the s64, which turns the
> > > negative value into a positive value, thus eligible check fails.
> > >
> > > So where is this insane huge vruntime 18435852013561943404 coming from?
> > > My guess is that, it is because the initial value of cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> > > is set to (unsigned long)(-(1LL << 20)). If the task(watchdog in this case)
> > > seldom scheduled in, its vruntime might not move forward too much and
> > > remain its original value by previous place_entity().
> >
> > Could you please test the follow patch:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240130080643.1828-1-xuewen.yan@unisoc.com/
> >
> > Because the se->vruntime would be changed in place_entity() and
> > reweight_eevdf(),
> > however, now the vlag may exceed eevdf's limit in some scenarios, it may cause
> > the vrunitme's error.
> >
>
> Thanks for providing this fix. I took a quick look at your patch, and it looks
> reasonable to me. I'm not quite sure if the vlag issue is the root cause of
> this NULL candidate problem, say, if the abnormal vlag happens, it should satisfy:
> curr->vlag == curr->deadline ?

Actually, this is just a situation, because in set_next_entity(), it
would set the valg be equal to deadline, and if using the vlag to
update the vruntime, the vruntime is most likely wrong.
However, even if vlag is normal, after the calc: ((W + w_i)*vl'_i / W)
or (w/w'), it may also be an out-of-bounds value.
For example: if change the nice from -20(weight:88761) to
19(weight:15), its vlag would be 88761/15=5917*vlag.

>
> According to the data,
> curr->deadline =
> cfs_rq->min_vruntime = 763383370431
> cfs_rq->avg_vruntime = 386638640128
> entity_key = -10892823530978643
> avg = -6851585614346926319
> load = 2677
> so avg_vruntime() = 18444185410266494357
> curr->vlag = 8333396704550953
> which does not equal to curr->deadline = 18435852013562231446
>
> Anyway, if we want to root cause why vruntime is behind cfs_rq->min_vruntime so
> much, we can add more debug code to further investigation. And we will also leverage
> lkp to test your vlag fix patch set.

Yes, maybe you can see more information by adding log in place_entity().

BR

>
> > >
> > > The proper fix should deal with the overflow of entity_key() * load, but
> > > I don't have much clue on that, so propose this conservative method to
> > > restore the previous behavior before the mentioned commit.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2227a957e1d5 ("sched/eevdf: Sort the rbtree by virtual deadline")
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202401301012.2ed95df0-oliver.sang@intel.com/
> > > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 533547e3c90a..fb9202f464e2 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ static struct sched_entity *pick_eevdf(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > > struct rb_node *node = cfs_rq->tasks_timeline.rb_root.rb_node;
> > > struct sched_entity *se = __pick_first_entity(cfs_rq);
> > > struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
> > > - struct sched_entity *best = NULL;
> > > + struct sched_entity *best = NULL, *leftmost;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * We can safely skip eligibility check if there is only one entity
> > > @@ -905,6 +905,8 @@ static struct sched_entity *pick_eevdf(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > > goto found;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + leftmost = se;
> > > +
> >
> > Maybe judging which of the deadlines of curr and se is smaller is better?
> >
>
> Yes it is donable. When the NULL pointer exception happens, the deadline of
> current is very large(nearly u64 overflow), we might always choose se
> if we compare them.
>
> thanks,
> Chenyu

--
xuewen