linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Break busywaiting for requests on pending signals

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, 16 Nov 2015 11:40:25 +0000
From:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@...el.com>,
	"Rantala, Valtteri" <valtteri.rantala@...el.com>,
	stable@...nel.vger.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Break busywaiting for requests on pending
 signals


On 16/11/15 11:22, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:54:10AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 15/11/15 13:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> The busywait in __i915_spin_request() does not respect pending signals
>>> and so may consume the entire timeslice for the task instead of
>>> returning to userspace to handle the signal.
>>
>> Obviously correct to break the spin, but if spending a jiffie to
>> react to signals was the only problem then it is not too severe.
>>
>> Add something to the commit message about how it was found/reported
>> and about the severity of impact, etc?
>
> Perhaps:
>
> At the worst case this could cause a delay in signal processing of 20ms,
> which would be a noticeable jitter in cursor tracking. If a higher
> resolution signal was being used, for example to provide fairness of a
> server timeslices between clients, we could expect to detect some
> unfairness between clients. This issue was noticed when inspecting a
> report of poor interactivity resulting from excessively high
> __i915_spin_request usage.

Oh its the Xorg scheduler tick... I always forget about that. Was 
thinking that it is only about fatal, or at least infrequent signals.

Regards,

Tvrtko
--
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/