Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:39:01 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Use rq->lock when checking cfs_rq list
 presence
Message-ID: <20211013143900.GB48428@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20211011172236.11223-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <CAFpoUr1KrXKdiCp-DVQLnu-c2YS91AszZB6RdZNVLBm9sGjMEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFpoUr1KrXKdiCp-DVQLnu-c2YS91AszZB6RdZNVLBm9sGjMEw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:12:08PM +0100, Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al> wrote:
> To be 100% clear, this can only happen when a control group is
> throttled while it has load
> (cfs_rq_is_decayed(cfs_rq) is false); and then its unthrottling race
> with its deletion?
> Is that a correct understanding Michal?

Yes, that's my working hypothesis but Vincent found a loophole in the
proposed fix under this assumption.


> Do you agree that that will also solve the problem Michal,
> or am I missing something obvious here?

It's not easy for me to verify this with a reproducer and as suggested
by your discomfort, let's dismiss this idea for the time being.

Michal