sched/core: Avoid multiple calling update_rq_clock() in __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()

[ Upstream commit ebb83d84e4 ]

After commit 8ad075c2eb ("sched: Async unthrottling for cfs
bandwidth"), we may update the rq clock multiple times in the loop of
__cfsb_csd_unthrottle().

A prior (although less common) instance of this problem exists in
unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs().

Cure both by ensuring update_rq_clock() is called before the loop and
setting RQCF_ACT_SKIP during the loop, to supress further updates.
The alternative would be pulling update_rq_clock() out of
unthrottle_cfs_rq(), but that gives an even bigger mess.

Fixes: 8ad075c2eb ("sched: Async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth")
Reviewed-By: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230613082012.49615-4-jiahao.os@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

kernel/sched/fair.c

@@ -5519,6 +5519,14 @@ static void __cfsb_csd_unthrottle(void *arg)
 
 	rq_lock(rq, &rf);
 
+	/*
+	 * Iterating over the list can trigger several call to
+	 * update_rq_clock() in unthrottle_cfs_rq().
+	 * Do it once and skip the potential next ones.
+	 */
+	update_rq_clock(rq);
+	rq_clock_start_loop_update(rq);
+
 	/*
 	 * Since we hold rq lock we're safe from concurrent manipulation of
 	 * the CSD list. However, this RCU critical section annotates the
@@ -5538,6 +5546,7 @@ static void __cfsb_csd_unthrottle(void *arg)
 
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
+	rq_clock_stop_loop_update(rq);
 	rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
 }
 
@@ -6054,6 +6063,13 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
 
 	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
 
+	/*
+	 * The rq clock has already been updated in the
+	 * set_rq_offline(), so we should skip updating
+	 * the rq clock again in unthrottle_cfs_rq().
+	 */
+	rq_clock_start_loop_update(rq);
+
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tg, &task_groups, list) {
 		struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
@@ -6076,6 +6092,8 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
 			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	rq_clock_stop_loop_update(rq);
 }
 
 #else /* CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH */

kernel/sched/sched.h

@@ -1546,6 +1546,28 @@ static inline void rq_clock_cancel_skipupdate(struct rq *rq)
 	rq->clock_update_flags &= ~RQCF_REQ_SKIP;
 }
 
+/*
+ * During cpu offlining and rq wide unthrottling, we can trigger
+ * an update_rq_clock() for several cfs and rt runqueues (Typically
+ * when using list_for_each_entry_*)
+ * rq_clock_start_loop_update() can be called after updating the clock
+ * once and before iterating over the list to prevent multiple update.
+ * After the iterative traversal, we need to call rq_clock_stop_loop_update()
+ * to clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP of rq->clock_update_flags.
+ */
+static inline void rq_clock_start_loop_update(struct rq *rq)
+{
+	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
+	SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP);
+	rq->clock_update_flags |= RQCF_ACT_SKIP;
+}
+
+static inline void rq_clock_stop_loop_update(struct rq *rq)
+{
+	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
+	rq->clock_update_flags &= ~RQCF_ACT_SKIP;
+}
+
 struct rq_flags {
 	unsigned long flags;
 	struct pin_cookie cookie;