Re: scheduler bug: process running since 5124095h

[Hidetoshi Seto]

(2010/03/29 21:04), Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> (2010/03/29 19:52), Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 11:49 +0300, TÃrÃk Edwin wrote:
>>> On 03/27/2010 11:46 AM, TÃrÃk Edwin wrote:
>>>> Hi Ingo, Peter,
>>>>
>>>> top has just shown me this:
>>>> PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>>>>
>>>>                                                                  6524
>>>> edwin     20   0  228m  10m 8116 R    2  0.3  5124095h gkrellm
>>>>
>>>> Now obviously that process is not running since 5124095h!
>>>> It looks like some overflow to me, the time in nanoseconds would be
>>>> approx 0xFFFFFE1D2D476000, which is approx. minus 34 minutes.
>>>> Thats about consistent with the uptime, but I don't know why it became
>>>> negative:
>>>>  11:45:48 up 42 min,  9 users,  load average: 0.56, 0.25, 0.19
>>>>
>>>> I've attached the cfs-debug-info.sh output.
>>>>
>>>> This happens when using Linux 2.6.33 (actually glisse's drm-radeon tree
>>>> which is based on 2.6.33), its the first time I noticed this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what caused it, the last things I did was:
>>>
>>> I have a simple way to reproduce this:
>>> 1. Boot the system, run top, confirm everything is normal
>>> 2. Run latencytop, and quit (I used version 0.5)
>>> 3. Run top, see 5124095h in the TIME column
>>
>> Indeed, and I don't even have CONFIG_LATENCYTOP set.  It bisected to...
>>
>> 761b1d26df542fd5eb348837351e4d2f3bc7bffe is the first bad commit
>> commit 761b1d26df542fd5eb348837351e4d2f3bc7bffe
>> Author: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date:   Thu Nov 12 13:33:45 2009 +0900

Quick report:

The reason why this commit have bisected is because it changed
the type of time values from signed clock_t to unsigned cputime_t,
so that the following if-block become to be always taken:

   > -       stime = nsec_to_clock_t(p->se.sum_exec_runtime) -
   > -                       cputime_to_clock_t(task_utime(p));
   > +       stime = nsecs_to_cputime(p->se.sum_exec_runtime) - task_utime(p);
   > 
>> >         if (stime >= 0)
   > -               p->prev_stime = max(p->prev_stime, clock_t_to_cputime(stime));
   > +               p->prev_stime = max(p->prev_stime, stime);
   > 
   >         return p->prev_stime;

>From strace of latancytop, it does write to /proc/<pid>/sched:

   5891  open("/proc/1/sched", O_RDWR)     = 5
   5891  fstat(5, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
   5891  mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
    0x7fc6668f3000
   5891  read(5, "init (1, #threads: 1)\n----------"..., 1024) = 776
   5891  read(5, "", 1024)                 = 0
>> 5891  write(5, "erase", 5)              = 5
   5891  close(5)                          = 0

It results in:

[kernel/sched_debug.c]
void proc_sched_set_task(struct task_struct *p)
{
 :
        p->se.sum_exec_runtime                  = 0;
        p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime             = 0;
        p->nvcsw                                = 0;
        p->nivcsw                               = 0;
}

So soon some task will have great (in fact negative) stime.

There would be no doubt that this initialize in sched_debug.c
will break monotonicity of sum_exec_runtime.  I confirmed that
the issue is disappeared by comment-out of lines above.

Reverting the bisected commit is wrong solution, because it
will bring another issue, i.e. lost of runtime, and u/stime
seems to be frozen because these values restart from 0 so
prev_* is used for a while.

How to fix?  Is this a bug of latencytop? Kernel?
Please comment.


Thanks,
H.Seto

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/