| 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, 19 Mar 2009 11:29:01 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] circular lock dependency in tip
On Thursday 19 March 2009 08:21:11 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > return;
>
> Is this really a good idea? I mean, if the system is very active, it can
> easily fail to acquire memory, you just need to have cache filled.
OTOH, if it's very active, what's it doing in idle_balance?
> I'm thinking a blind conversion of cpumask_var_t is not the best way to
> handle changes. This is as bad as fixing compiler warnings without looking
> into the real cause.
Sure, and I'd love to spend far more time analyzing each and every case where
people throw around cpumasks like candy. Yet if I never get to the stage where
everything is converted, then we can never have on-stack cpumasks fail compile
with CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y, and so the job will never be finished.
Anyway, looking at the code:
We use the same trick in load_balance() and load_balance_newidle(): the
cpumask is a temporary so we can eliminate busy queues with all tasks pinned.
This actually only addresses a subset of the problem though: if we have a
heap of tasks which are pinned to two cpus, this logic doesn't help us.
We could keep separate cpu load measuring only movable processes, but that
seems like optimizing for the wrong case. In fact, allocating here seems
like optimizing for the correct case. Since we can't do that, a per-cpu
scratch mask seems in order. It's messier tho.
Does this solve it? (Untested).
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 5dabd80..48862d4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3448,19 +3448,23 @@ find_busiest_queue(struct sched_group *group, enum cpu_idle_type idle,
*/
#define MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL 512
+/* Working cpumask for load_balance and load_balance_newidle. */
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, load_balance_tmpmask);
+
/*
* Check this_cpu to ensure it is balanced within domain. Attempt to move
* tasks if there is an imbalance.
*/
static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
struct sched_domain *sd, enum cpu_idle_type idle,
- int *balance, struct cpumask *cpus)
+ int *balance)
{
int ld_moved, all_pinned = 0, active_balance = 0, sd_idle = 0;
struct sched_group *group;
unsigned long imbalance;
struct rq *busiest;
unsigned long flags;
+ struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask);
cpumask_setall(cpus);
@@ -3615,8 +3619,7 @@ out:
* this_rq is locked.
*/
static int
-load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd,
- struct cpumask *cpus)
+load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
{
struct sched_group *group;
struct rq *busiest = NULL;
@@ -3624,6 +3627,7 @@ load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd,
int ld_moved = 0;
int sd_idle = 0;
int all_pinned = 0;
+ struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask);
cpumask_setall(cpus);
@@ -3764,10 +3768,6 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
struct sched_domain *sd;
int pulled_task = 0;
unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
- cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
-
- if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_ATOMIC))
- return;
for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
unsigned long interval;
@@ -3778,7 +3778,7 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE)
/* If we've pulled tasks over stop searching: */
pulled_task = load_balance_newidle(this_cpu, this_rq,
- sd, tmpmask);
+ sd);
interval = msecs_to_jiffies(sd->balance_interval);
if (time_after(next_balance, sd->last_balance + interval))
@@ -3793,7 +3793,6 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
*/
this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
}
- free_cpumask_var(tmpmask);
}
/*
@@ -3943,11 +3942,6 @@ static void rebalance_domains(int cpu, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + 60*HZ;
int update_next_balance = 0;
int need_serialize;
- cpumask_var_t tmp;
-
- /* Fails alloc? Rebalancing probably not a priority right now. */
- if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp, GFP_ATOMIC))
- return;
for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
@@ -3972,7 +3966,7 @@ static void rebalance_domains(int cpu, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
}
if (time_after_eq(jiffies, sd->last_balance + interval)) {
- if (load_balance(cpu, rq, sd, idle, &balance, tmp)) {
+ if (load_balance(cpu, rq, sd, idle, &balance)) {
/*
* We've pulled tasks over so either we're no
* longer idle, or one of our SMT siblings is
@@ -4006,8 +4000,6 @@ out:
*/
if (likely(update_next_balance))
rq->next_balance = next_balance;
-
- free_cpumask_var(tmp);
}
/*
@@ -8304,6 +8296,9 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_USER_SCHED
alloc_size *= 2;
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
+ alloc_size *= num_possible_cpus() * cpumask_size();
+#endif
/*
* As sched_init() is called before page_alloc is setup,
* we use alloc_bootmem().
@@ -8341,6 +8336,12 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
ptr += nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(void **);
#endif /* CONFIG_USER_SCHED */
#endif /* CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED */
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
+ per_cpu(load_balance_tmpmask, i) = (void *)ptr;
+ ptr += cpumask_size();
+ }
+#endif /* CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK */
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
--
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