linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: enforce per-cpu utilization limits on runtime balancing

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: <1267129705.22519.561.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:28:25 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <faggioli@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Michael Trimarchi <michael@...dence.eu.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <t.cucinotta@...up.it>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: enforce per-cpu utilization limits on
 runtime balancing

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 19:56 +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> +static u64 from_ratio(unsigned long ratio, u64 period)
> +{
> +       return (ratio * period) >> 20;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Try to move *diff units of runtime from src to dst, checking
> + * that the utilization does not exceed the global limits on the
> + * destination cpu.  Returns true if the migration succeeded, leaving
> + * in *diff the actual amount of runtime moved, false on failure, which
> + * means that no more bandwidth can be migrated to rt_rq.
> + */
> +static int rt_move_bw(struct rt_rq *src, struct rt_rq *dst,
> +                      s64 *diff, u64 rt_period)
> +{
> +       struct rq *rq = rq_of_rt_rq(dst), *src_rq = rq_of_rt_rq(src);
> +       struct rt_edf_tree *dtree = &rq->rt.rt_edf_tree;
> +       struct rt_edf_tree *stree = &src_rq->rt.rt_edf_tree;
> +       unsigned long bw_to_move;
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       double_spin_lock(&dtree->rt_bw_lock, &stree->rt_bw_lock);
> +
> +       if (dtree->rt_free_bw) {
> +               bw_to_move = to_ratio(rt_period, *diff);
> +               if (bw_to_move > dtree->rt_free_bw) {
> +                       bw_to_move = dtree->rt_free_bw;
> +                       *diff = from_ratio(bw_to_move, rt_period);
> +               }
> +
> +               stree->rt_free_bw -= bw_to_move;
> +               dtree->rt_free_bw += bw_to_move;
> +               ret = 1;
> +       }
> +
> +       double_spin_unlock(&dtree->rt_bw_lock, &stree->rt_bw_lock);
> +
> +       return ret;
> +} 

The from_ratio() stuff smells like numerical instability for
->rt_free_bw, I can't see anything that would, given sufficient balance
cycles keep the sum of rt_free_bw over the cpus equal to what it started
out with.

--
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/