linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kthread: always create the kernel threads with normal priority

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]
Message-Id: <20080107022513.3ac05734.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2008 02:25:13 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: always create the kernel threads with normal
 priority

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:06:03 +0100 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:30:21 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:43:14 +0100 Michal Schmidt
> > <mschmidt@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > kthreadd, the creator of other kernel threads, runs as a normal
> > > priority task. This is a potential for priority inversion when a
> > > task wants to spawn a high-priority kernel thread. A middle priority
> > > SCHED_FIFO task can block kthreadd's execution indefinitely and thus
> > > prevent the timely creation of the high-priority kernel thread.
> > >     
> > > This causes a practical problem. When a runaway real-time task is
> > > eating 100% CPU and we attempt to put the CPU offline, sometimes we
> > > block while waiting for the creation of the highest-priority
> > > "kstopmachine" thread. 
> > > 
> > > The fix is to run kthreadd with the highest possible SCHED_FIFO
> > > priority. Its children must still run as slightly negatively reniced
> > > SCHED_NORMAL tasks.
> > 
> > Did you hit this problem with the stock kernel, or have you been
> > working on other stuff?
> 
> This was with RHEL5 and with current Fedora kernels.
> 
> > A locked-up SCHED_FIFO process will cause kernel threads all sorts of
> > problems.  You've hit one instance, but there will be others.
> > (pdflush stops working, for one).
> > 
> > The general approach we've taken to this is "don't do that".  Yes, we
> > could boost lots of kernel threads in the way which this patch does
> > but this actually takes control *away* from userspace.  Userspace no
> > longer has the ability to guarantee itself minimum possible latency
> > without getting preempted by kernel threads.
> > 
> > And yes, giving userspace this minimum-latency capability does imply
> > that userspace has a responsibility to not 100% starve kernel
> > threads.  It's a reasonable compromise, I think?
> 
> You're right. We should not run kthreadd with SCHED_FIFO by default.
> But the user should be able to change it using chrt if he wants to
> avoid this particular problem. So how about this instead?:
> 
> 
> 
> kthreadd, the creator of other kernel threads, runs as a normal priority task.
> This is a potential for priority inversion when a task wants to spawn a
> high-priority kernel thread. A middle priority SCHED_FIFO task can block
> kthreadd's execution indefinitely and thus prevent the timely creation of the
> high-priority kernel thread.
> 
> This causes a practical problem. When a runaway real-time task is eating 100%
> CPU and we attempt to put the CPU offline, sometimes we block while waiting for
> the creation of the highest-priority "kstopmachine" thread.
> 
> This could be solved by always running kthreadd with the highest possible
> SCHED_FIFO priority, but that would be undesirable policy decision in the
> kernel. kthreadd would cause unwanted latencies even for the realtime users who
> know what they're doing.
> 
> Let's not make the decision for the user. Just allow the administrator to
> change kthreadd's priority safely if he chooses to do it. Ensure that the
> kernel threads are created with the usual nice level even if kthreadd's
> priority is changed from the default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kthread.c |   11 +++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> index dcfe724..e832a85 100644
> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -94,10 +94,21 @@ static void create_kthread(struct kthread_create_info *create)
>  	if (pid < 0) {
>  		create->result = ERR_PTR(pid);
>  	} else {
> +		struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 0 };
>  		wait_for_completion(&create->started);
>  		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  		create->result = find_task_by_pid(pid);
>  		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +		/*
> +		 * root may want to change our (kthreadd's) priority to
> +		 * realtime to solve a corner case priority inversion problem
> +		 * (a realtime task consuming 100% CPU blocking the creation of
> +		 * kernel threads). The kernel thread should not inherit the
> +		 * higher priority. Let's always create it with the usual nice
> +		 * level.
> +		 */
> +		sched_setscheduler(create->result, SCHED_NORMAL, &param);
> +		set_user_nice(create->result, -5);
>  	}
>  	complete(&create->done);
>  }

Seems reasonable.

As a followup thing, we now have two hard-coded magical -5's in kthread.c. 
It'd be nice to add a #define for this.

It'd be nicer to work out where on earth that -5 came from too ;)

Readers might wonder why kthreadd children disinherit kthreadd's policy and
priority, but retain its cpus_allowed (and whatever other stuff root could have
altered?)

--
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/