linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched

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, 5 Jun 2015 12:36:54 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Giraldeau, Francis" <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched_wakeup tracepoint

----- On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:41:49PM +0200, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> > Commit 317f394160e9 "sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to the remote cpu"
>> > moves ttwu_do_wakeup() to an IPI handler context on the remote CPU for
>> > remote wakeups. This commit appeared upstream in Linux v3.0.
>> > 
>> > Unfortunately, ttwu_do_wakeup() happens to contain the "sched_wakeup"
>> > tracepoint. Analyzing wakup latencies depends on getting the wakeup
>> > chain right: which process is the waker, which is the wakee. Moving this
>> > instrumention outside of the waker context prevents trace analysis tools
>> > from getting the waker pid, either through "current" in the tracepoint
>> > probe, or by deducing it using other scheduler events based on the CPU
>> > executing the tracepoint.
>> > 
>> > Another side-effect of moving this instrumentation to the scheduler ipi
>> > is that the delay during which the wakeup is sitting in the pending
>> > queue is not accounted for when calculating wakeup latency.
>> > 
>> > Therefore, move the sched_wakeup instrumentation back to the waker
>> > context to fix those two shortcomings.
>> 
>> What do you consider wakeup-latency? I don't see how moving the
>> tracepoint into the caller will magically account the queue time.
> 
> Well, the point of wakeup is when the wakee calls wakeup. If the trace

^ I think you actually mean "when the waker calls wakeup".

> point is in the IPI then you account the time between the wakeup and
> the actuall handling in the IPI to the wakee instead of accounting it
> to the time between wakeup and sched switch.
> 

Thanks,

Mathieu

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/