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]

Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:53:25 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>, 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

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
>   

Yeah, this sounds broken.  I know that the root-domain code was being
developed coincident to some upheaval with the cpuset code, so I suspect
something may have been broken from the original intent.  I will take a
look.

-Greg

>   
>> 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/
>   



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)