| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:14:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Brian Rogers <brian@...w.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] How to get real-time priority using idle priority
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:28 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> The real problem (excluding the SCHED_IDLE specific problems), is that
> update_min_vruntime() doesn't work quite as intended, and will slam
> min_vruntime far right if load balancing etc places a task which is far
> right of the currently running task on the runqueue. If the currently
> running, and up to this point the min_vruntime pace setter, is a hog,
> any task waking to this runqueue after min_vruntime leaps forward has to
> wait for the hog to consume the gap. In the case of SCHED_IDLE tasks,
> that gap can be huge, but even with a nice 19 tasks it can be quite
> large and painful.
>
> Removing the if (vruntime == cfs_rq->min_vruntime) test, which will be
> true if the currently running task is the pace setter, cured it for me.
OK, so we have 1 running task A (which is obviously curr and the tree is
equally obviously empty).
A nicely chugs along, doing its thing, carrying min_vruntime along as it
goes.
Then some whacko speed freak SCHED_IDLE task gets inserted due to SMP
balancing, which is very likely far right, in that case
update_curr
update_min_vruntime
cfs_rq->rb_leftmost := true (the crazy task sitting in a tree)
vruntime = se->vruntime
and voila, min_vruntime is waaay right of where it ought to be.
OK, so why did I write it like that to begin with...
Aah, yes.
Say we've just dequeued current
schedule
deactivate_task(prev)
dequeue_entity
update_min_vruntime
Then we'll set
vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
we find !cfs_rq->curr, but do find someone in the tree. Then we _must_
do vruntime = se->vruntime, because
vruntime = min_vruntime(vruntime := cfs_rq->min_vruntime, se->vruntime)
will not advance vruntime, and cause lags the other way around (which we
fixed with that initial patch: 1af5f730fc1bf7c62ec9fb2d307206e18bf40a69
(sched: more accurate min_vruntime accounting).
Which leads me to suggest the following
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 8e1352c..f2d2d94 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ static void update_min_vruntime(struct cfs_rq
*cfs_rq)
struct sched_entity,
run_node);
- if (vruntime == cfs_rq->min_vruntime)
+ if (!cfs_rq->curr)
vruntime = se->vruntime;
else
vruntime = min_vruntime(vruntime, se->vruntime);
The below can be split into 3 patches:
- the idle weight change (do we really need that? why?)
- the above update_min_vruntime() fix
- the SCHED_IDLE vs SCHED_OTHER isolation changes (ACK on those)
> If this cures your woes (and Peter acks it), I'll split and submit.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index deb5ac8..e9f0762 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1320,8 +1320,8 @@ static inline void update_load_sub(struct load_weight *lw, unsigned long dec)
> * slice expiry etc.
> */
>
> -#define WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO 2
> -#define WMULT_IDLEPRIO (1 << 31)
> +#define WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO 3
> +#define WMULT_IDLEPRIO 1431655765
>
> /*
> * Nice levels are multiplicative, with a gentle 10% change for every
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 8e1352c..761071d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -283,10 +283,7 @@ static void update_min_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> struct sched_entity,
> run_node);
>
> - if (vruntime == cfs_rq->min_vruntime)
> - vruntime = se->vruntime;
> - else
> - vruntime = min_vruntime(vruntime, se->vruntime);
> + vruntime = min_vruntime(vruntime, se->vruntime);
> }
>
> cfs_rq->min_vruntime = max_vruntime(cfs_rq->min_vruntime, vruntime);
> @@ -677,9 +674,13 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
> unsigned long thresh = sysctl_sched_latency;
>
> /*
> - * convert the sleeper threshold into virtual time
> + * Convert the sleeper threshold into virtual time.
> + * SCHED_IDLE is a special sub-class. We care about
> + * fairness only relative to other SCHED_IDLE tasks,
> + * all of which have the same weight.
> */
> - if (sched_feat(NORMALIZED_SLEEPER))
> + if (sched_feat(NORMALIZED_SLEEPER) &&
> + task_of(se)->policy != SCHED_IDLE)
> thresh = calc_delta_fair(thresh, se);
>
> vruntime -= thresh;
> @@ -1340,14 +1341,18 @@ wakeup_preempt_entity(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se)
>
> static void set_last_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
> {
> - for_each_sched_entity(se)
> - cfs_rq_of(se)->last = se;
> + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> + if (likely(task_of(se)->policy != SCHED_IDLE))
> + cfs_rq_of(se)->last = se;
> + }
> }
>
> static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
> {
> - for_each_sched_entity(se)
> - cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> + if (likely(task_of(se)->policy != SCHED_IDLE))
> + cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> + }
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1393,12 +1398,18 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sync)
> return;
>
> /*
> - * Batch tasks do not preempt (their preemption is driven by
> + * Batch and idle tasks do not preempt (their preemption is driven by
> * the tick):
> */
> - if (unlikely(p->policy == SCHED_BATCH))
> + if (unlikely(p->policy != SCHED_NORMAL))
> return;
>
> + /* Idle tasks are by definition preempted by everybody. */
> + if (unlikely(curr->policy == SCHED_IDLE)) {
> + resched_task(curr);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
> return;
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists