MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <73e639d5-702b-0d03-16d9-a965b1963ef6@huawei.com>
 <Y6RRfF5yRew7rdCp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <Y9GG3N5ivVvyETa2@u40bc5e070a0153.ant.amazon.com>
 <Y9J25xMrItpeHIxD@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <Y9LG5vkf/4ufJb35@u40bc5e070a0153.ant.amazon.com>
 <Y9O5Fwfib2CVAMwl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAKfTPtBMSg2SDXq=sVt99TyM+tEXRFL74EQ57-t5uKYAXUUyLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <xm26v8kr7ho0.fsf@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xm26v8kr7ho0.fsf@google.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:29:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBaL06+EFUscYqgA=psTV4r-MxVwxyKHXDXppWPD2ku0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug-report] possible s64 overflow in max_vruntime()
To:     Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@amazon.de>,
        Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 23:10, Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com> wrote:
>
> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 12:44, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >>
> >> > > All that only matters for small sleeps anyway.
> >> > >
> >> > > Something like:
> >> > >
> >> > >         sleep_time = U64_MAX;
> >> > >         if (se->avg.last_update_time)
> >> > >           sleep_time = cfs_rq_clock_pelt(cfs_rq) - se->avg.last_update_time;
> >> >
> >> > Interesting, why not rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->exec_start, as
> >> > others were suggesting?  It appears to better match the notion of sleep
> >> > wall-time, no?
> >>
> >> Should also work I suppose. cfs_rq_clock takes throttling into account,
> >> but that should hopefully also not be *that* long, so either should
> >> work.
> >
> > yes rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) should be fine too
>
> No, last_update_time is based on cfs_rq_clock_pelt(cfs_rq), and it will
> get more and more out of sync as time goes on, every time the cfs_rq
> throttles. It won't reset when the throttle is done.

I was referring to the rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->exec_start
that Roman was asking for

>
> >
> > Another thing to take into account is the sleeper credit that the
> > waking task deserves so the detection should be done once it has been
> > subtracted from vruntime.
> >
> > Last point, when a nice -20 task runs on a rq, it will take a bit more
> > than 2 seconds for the vruntime to be increased by more than 24ms (the
> > maximum credit that a waking task can get) so threshold must be
> > significantly higher than 2 sec. On the opposite side, the lowest
> > possible weight of a cfs rq is 2 which means that the problem appears
> > for a sleep longer or equal to 2^54 = 2^63*2/1024. We should use this
> > value instead of an arbitrary 200 days