linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] sched: fix init NOHZ

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:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:10:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched: fix init NOHZ_IDLE flag

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 17:38 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> ---
>  include/linux/sched.h |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/fair.c   |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index d35d2b6..cde4f7f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
>  	unsigned int wake_idx;
>  	unsigned int forkexec_idx;
>  	unsigned int smt_gain;
> +	unsigned long nohz_flags;	/* NOHZ_IDLE flag status */
>  	int flags;			/* See SD_* */
>  	int level;

There was a 4 byte hole here, I'm assuming you used unsigned long and
not utilized the hole because of the whole atomic bitop interface
taking unsigned long?

Bit wasteful but ok.. 

So we're only pulling NOHZ_IDLE out of nohz_flags()? Should we then not
also amend the rq_nohz_flag_bits enum? And it seems pointless to me to
set bit 2 our nohz_flags word if all other bits are unused.

>  
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 7a33e59..09e440f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5394,14 +5394,21 @@ static inline void set_cpu_sd_state_busy(void)
>  {
>  	struct sched_domain *sd;
>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> -	if (!test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu)))
> -		return;
> -	clear_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu));
> +	int first_nohz_idle = 1;
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
> +	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> +		if (first_nohz_idle) {
> +			if (!test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags))
> +				goto unlock;
> +
> +			clear_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags);
> +			first_nohz_idle = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  		atomic_inc(&sd->groups->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
> +	}

the mind boggles... what's wrong with something like:

static inline unsigned long *rq_nohz_flags(int cpu)
{
	return rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd)->nohz_flags;
}

	if (!test_bit(0, rq_nohz_flags(cpu)))
		return;
	clear_bit(0, rq_nohz_flags(cpu));

> +unlock:
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
> @@ -5409,14 +5416,21 @@ void set_cpu_sd_state_idle(void)
>  {
>  	struct sched_domain *sd;
>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> -	if (test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu)))
> -		return;
> -	set_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu));
> +	int first_nohz_idle = 1;
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
> +	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> +		if (first_nohz_idle) {
> +			if (test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags))
> +				goto unlock;
> +
> +			set_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags);
> +			first_nohz_idle = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  		atomic_dec(&sd->groups->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
> +	}
> +unlock:

Same here, .. why on earth do it for every sched_domain for that cpu?

>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  

And since its now only a single bit in a single word, we can easily
change it to something like:

  if (*rq_nohz_idle(cpu))
	return;
  xchg(rq_nohz_idle(cpu), 1); /* set; use 0 for clear */

which drops the unsigned long nonsense..

Or am I completely missing something obvious here?

--
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/