public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, mgorman@suse.de,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	patrick.bellasi@matbug.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix wrong negative conversion in find_energy_efficient_cpu()
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:18:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjy2mmhhq6.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200810083004.26420-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>


On 10/08/20 09:30, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> In find_energy_efficient_cpu() 'cpu_cap' could be less that 'util'.
> It might be because of RT, DL (so higher sched class than CFS), irq or
> thermal pressure signal, which reduce the capacity value.
> In such situation the result of 'cpu_cap - util' might be negative but
> stored in the unsigned long. Then it might be compared with other unsigned
> long when uclamp_rq_util_with() reduced the 'util' such that is passes the
> fits_capacity() check.
>
> Prevent this situation and make the arithmetic more safe.
>
> Fixes: 1d42509e475cd ("sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider
> uclamp restrictions")

I was going to say that might even go as far back as:

  732cd75b8c92 ("sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on task wake-up")

but we had a capacity fitness check in the right place back then, which I
screwed over with that uclamp_rq_util_with() :/

LGTM, thanks for figuring that one out.

Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>

> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 1a68a0536add..51408ebd76c2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6594,7 +6594,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>
>                       util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, cpu);
>                       cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
> -			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
> +			spare_cap = cpu_cap;
> +			lsub_positive(&spare_cap, util);
>
>                       /*
>                        * Skip CPUs that cannot satisfy the capacity request.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-10 11:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-10  8:30 [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix wrong negative conversion in find_energy_efficient_cpu() Lukasz Luba
2020-08-10 11:18 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-08-10 14:05   ` peterz
2020-08-27  7:54 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Lukasz Luba

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=jhjy2mmhhq6.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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