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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:51:01 +0530
From:	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities
 which exceed their local quota

Hi Peter,

I will only answer a couple of your questions and let Paul clarify the rest...

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:32:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 19:18 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> 
> 
> > @@ -1363,6 +1407,9 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct 
> >  			break;
> >  		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> >  		enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, flags);
> > +		/* don't continue to enqueue if our parent is throttled */
> > +		if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> > +			break;
> >  		flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP;
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -1390,8 +1437,11 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq 
> >  		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> >  		dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se, flags);
> >  
> > -		/* Don't dequeue parent if it has other entities besides us */
> > -		if (cfs_rq->load.weight)
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Don't dequeue parent if it has other entities besides us,
> > +		 * or if it is throttled
> > +		 */
> > +		if (cfs_rq->load.weight || cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> >  			break;
> >  		flags |= DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
> >  	}
> 
> How could we even be running if our parent was throttled?

The task isn't running actually. One of its parents up in the heirarchy has
been throttled and been already dequeued. Now this task sits on its immediate
parent's runqueue which isn't throttled but not really running also since
the hierarchy is throttled. In this situation, load balancer can try to pull
this task. When that happens, load balancer tries to dequeue it and this
check will ensure that we don't attempt to dequeue a group entity in our
hierarchy which has already been dequeued.

> > @@ -1438,10 +1524,16 @@ static void account_cfs_rq_quota(struct 
> >  
> >  	cfs_rq->quota_used += delta_exec;
> >  
> > -	if (cfs_rq->quota_used < cfs_rq->quota_assigned)
> > +	if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq) ||
> > +		cfs_rq->quota_used < cfs_rq->quota_assigned)
> >  		return;
> 
> So we are throttled but running anyway, I suppose this comes from the PI
> ceiling muck?

When a cfs_rq is throttled, its representative se (and all its parent
se's) get dequeued and the task is marked for resched. But the task entity is
still on its throttled parent's cfs_rq (=> task->se.on_rq = 1). Next during
put_prev_task_fair(), we enqueue the task back on its throttled parent's
cfs_rq at which time we end up calling update_curr() on throttled cfs_rq.
This check would help us bail out from that situation.

Regards,
Bharata.
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ