linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: newidle balance set idle

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1297222641.8035.4.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:37:21 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: newidle balance set idle_timestamp only on
 successful pull

On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 10:13 -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> load_balance() could return a negative value in the case of
> SMT sibling CPU being busy. Code in idle_balance() though, uses this
> return value as an indicator of successful task pull, ignoring the
> -1 return value.

Yup, garden variety bug.

> This has two problems:
> 1) Resets idle_stamp even when this return value is -1.
> Specific case is on SMT capable system, CPU A is idle and its sibling
> CPU B is busy. In this case, CPU A avg_idle will not depend on
> a task sleeping/waking up on it. Instead it will continue to hold stale
> avg_idle value for extended period of time.

Not good.

Acked-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>

	-Mike

--
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/