| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1294164289.2016.186.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:04:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -v3 PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 16:29 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
>
> Add a yield_to function to the scheduler code, allowing us to
> give enough of our timeslice to another thread to allow it to
> run and release whatever resource we need it to release.
>
> We may want to use this to provide a sys_yield_to system call
> one day.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
> Not-signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
>
> ---
> Mike, want to change the above into a Signed-off-by: ? :)
> This code seems to work well.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index c5f926c..0b8a3e6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1083,6 +1083,7 @@ struct sched_class {
> void (*enqueue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wakeup);
> void (*dequeue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sleep);
> void (*yield_task) (struct rq *rq);
> + int (*yield_to_task) (struct task_struct *p, int preempt);
>
> void (*check_preempt_curr) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
>
> @@ -1981,6 +1982,7 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p)
> # define rt_mutex_adjust_pi(p) do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> +extern void yield_to(struct task_struct *p, int preempt);
> extern void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice);
> extern int task_prio(const struct task_struct *p);
> extern int task_nice(const struct task_struct *p);
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index f8e5a25..ffa7a9d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -6901,6 +6901,53 @@ void __sched yield(void)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
>
> +/**
> + * yield_to - yield the current processor to another thread in
> + * your thread group, or accelerate that thread toward the
> + * processor it's on.
> + *
> + * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
> + * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
> + */
> +void __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, int preempt)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *curr = current;
> + struct rq *rq, *p_rq;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int yield = 0;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + rq = this_rq();
> +
> +again:
> + p_rq = task_rq(p);
> + double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
> + while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
> + double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> + goto again;
> + }
> +
> + if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state || !p->se.on_rq ||
> + !same_thread_group(p, curr) ||
> + !curr->sched_class->yield_to_task ||
> + curr->sched_class != p->sched_class) {
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + yield = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(p, preempt);
> +
> +out:
> + double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> + if (yield) {
> + set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + schedule();
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield_to);
This definitely wants to be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() and if it were possible
I'd make it so only kvm.o could use it. It really sucks that kvm is a
module.
> /*
> * This task is about to go to sleep on IO. Increment rq->nr_iowait so
> * that process accounting knows that this is a task in IO wait state.
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 5119b08..3288e7c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1119,6 +1119,61 @@ static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static void pull_task(struct rq *src_rq, struct task_struct *p,
> + struct rq *this_rq, int this_cpu);
> +#endif
> +
> +static int yield_to_task_fair(struct task_struct *p, int preempt)
> +{
> + struct sched_entity *se = ¤t->se;
> + struct sched_entity *pse = &p->se;
> + struct sched_entity *curr = &(task_rq(p)->curr)->se;
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> + struct cfs_rq *p_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
> + int yield = this_rq() == task_rq(p);
> + int want_preempt = preempt;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> + if (cfs_rq->tg != p_cfs_rq->tg)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Preemption only allowed within the same task group. */
> + if (preempt && cfs_rq->tg != cfs_rq_of(curr)->tg)
> + preempt = 0;
> +#endif
I'd simply bail if its not the same cgroup, who cares about that case
anyway, all KVM vcpu threads should be in the same cgroup I think.
> + /* Preemption only allowed within the same thread group. */
> + if (preempt && !same_thread_group(current, task_of(p_cfs_rq->curr)))
> + preempt = 0;
The calling site already checks for same_thread_group(), we never even
get here if that's not the case.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + /*
> + * If this yield is important enough to want to preempt instead
> + * of only dropping a ->next hint, we're alone, and the target
> + * is not alone, pull the target to this cpu.
> + */
> + if (want_preempt && !yield && cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 &&
> + cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &p->cpus_allowed)) {
> + pull_task(task_rq(p), p, this_rq(), smp_processor_id());
This only works by the grace that the caller checked p->se.on_rq. A
comment might be in order.
> + p_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
> + yield = 1;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> + if (yield)
> + clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se);
> + else if (preempt)
> + clear_buddies(p_cfs_rq, curr);
> +
> + /* Tell the scheduler that we'd really like pse to run next. */
> + p_cfs_rq->next = pse;
> +
> + if (!yield && preempt)
> + resched_task(task_of(p_cfs_rq->curr));
I don't get this.. Why would you resched the remote cpu, surely you
didn't just pull its current task over..
> + return yield;
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> /*
> @@ -2081,6 +2136,7 @@ static const struct sched_class fair_sched_class = {
> .enqueue_task = enqueue_task_fair,
> .dequeue_task = dequeue_task_fair,
> .yield_task = yield_task_fair,
> + .yield_to_task = yield_to_task_fair,
>
> .check_preempt_curr = check_preempt_wakeup,
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists