linux-kernel - Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel

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: <1247751422.6586.16.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:37:02 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"James H. Anderson" <anderson@...unc.edu>
Cc:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>, Ted Baker <baker@...fsu.edu>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Noah Watkins <jayhawk@....ucsc.edu>,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...c.ku.edu>,
	Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Linux RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	KUSP Google Group <kusp@...glegroups.com>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@...is.sssup.it>,
	"Bjoern B. Brandenburg" <bbb@...il.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel

On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 08:59 -0400, James H. Anderson wrote:
> 
> Raistlin wrote:
> > Also, I'm not sure I can find in the FMLP paper information about the
> > possibility of a task to suspend itself (e.g., I/O completion) while
> > holding a short lock... I assume this is not recommended, but may be
> > wrong, and, in that case, I hope Prof. Anderson and Bjorn will excuse
> > and correct me. :-)
> >
> >   
> This is a really excellent point and something I probably should have 
> mentioned.  We developed the FMLP strictly for real-time (only) 
> workloads.  We were specifically looking at protecting memory-resident 
> resources (not I/O).  The FMLP would have to be significantly extended 
> to work in settings where these assumptions don't hold.

One thing I've been thinking about is extending lockdep to help verify
things like this.

If we were to annotate a syscall/trap with something like:

  lockdep_assume_rt()

And teach lockdep about non-RT blocking objects, we could validate that
the callchain down from lockdep_assume_rt() would not indeed contain a
non-RT resource, but also that we don't take locks which might in other
another code path.

That is, suppose:

  sys_foo()
    lockdep_assume_rt()
    mutex_lock(&my_lock)

vs

  sys_bar()
    mutex_lock(&my_lock)
      down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)

vs

  page-fault
    down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)
      lock_page(page)

Would indeed generate a warning because mmap_sem is known to block on
IO, and there is a dependency (through sys_bar()) between my_lock and
mmap_sem, therefore sys_foo()'s assumption is invalid.



--
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/