linux-kernel - Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root

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: <1225751603.7803.1640.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:33:23 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and
 no load balance

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:07 -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> When load balancing gets switched off for a set of cpus via the
> sched_load_balance flag in cpusets, those cpus wind up with the
> globally defined def_root_domain attached.  The def_root_domain is
> attached when partition_sched_domains calls detach_destroy_domains().
> A new root_domain is never allocated or attached as a sched domain
> will never be attached by __build_sched_domains() for the non-load
> balanced processors.
> 
> The problem with this scenario is that on systems with a large number
> of processors with load balancing switched off, we start to see the
> cpupri->pri_to_cpu->lock in the def_root_domain becoming contended.
> This starts to become much more apparent above 8 waking RT threads
> (with each RT thread running on it's own cpu, blocking and waking up
> continuously).
> 
> I'm wondering if this is, in fact, the way things were meant to work,
> or should we have a root domain allocated for each cpu that is not to
> be part of a sched domain?  Note the the def_root_domain spans all of
> the non-load-balanced cpus in this case.  Having it attached to cpus
> that should not be load balancing doesn't quite make sense to me.

It shouldn't be like that, each load-balance domain (in your case a
single cpu) should get its own root domain. Gregory?

> Here's where we've often seen this lock contention occur:

what's this horrible output from?
--
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/