linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] Fix sched rt group scheduling when hierachy is enabled

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:30:58 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] Fix sched rt group scheduling when hierachy is enabled

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>  deactivate_task(b); /* A.throttled == 1 && A.rt_nr_running == 0 */
>>>>    do_sched_rt_period_timer(); /* A.run_time == 0 && A.throttled == 0*/
>>>
>>> Note at some point rt_time becomes 0 and if enqueue is not set, the
>>
>> If the group should be add back, it will be at the first
>> do_sched_rt_period_timer() which decreases run_time;
>>
>
> As long as idle is 0, the period will continue to run, if it has
> rt_nr_running or rt_time, the timer will run.

Yep.
Should be the first do_sched_rt_period_timer() which meets
rt_rq->rt_time < runtime :)

>
>>> next do_sched_rt_period_timer() is a NOP and does not enqueue back the
>>> group
>>
>> Otherwise it will be added back when a task is attching to it.
>>
>> I still can't see how a unthrottled group which has task attched stay
>> unqueued.
>
> The other way of looking at the first change is
>
> Can we have rt_time as 0, rt_nr_running >=1, rt_throttled !=0 and
> still not have the rt_rq enqueued?

Yeah, the same question. How could we reach that?

IMHO, rt_time == 0 and rt_throttled !=0 can't coexist.

>
> If this is not the case, we don't lose much, a quick check for
> rt_nr_running and on_rt_q

I don't get what you mean here.

Thanks,
Yong


-- 
Only stand for myself
--
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/