linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] rebuild_sched_domains considered dangerous

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: <1299676769.2308.2944.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:19:29 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Jesse Larrew <jlarrew@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] rebuild_sched_domains considered dangerous

On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 14:15 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:33:49 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 11:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > It appears that this corresponds to one CPU deciding to rebuild the
> > > > sched domains. There's various reasons why that can happen, the typical
> > > > one in our case is the new VPNH feature where the hypervisor informs us
> > > > of a change in node affinity of our virtual processors. s390 has a
> > > > similar feature and should be affected as well.
> > > 
> > > Ahh, so that's triggering it :-), just curious, how often does the HV do
> > > that to you? 
> > 
> > OK, so Ben told me on IRC this can happen quite frequently, to which I
> > must ask WTF were you guys smoking? Flipping the CPU topology every time
> > the HV scheduler does something funny is quite insane. And you did that
> > without ever talking to the scheduler folks, not cool.
> > 
> > That is of course aside from the fact that we have a real bug there that
> > needs fixing, but really guys, WTF!
> 
> Just for info, on s390 the topology change events are rather infrequent.
> They do happen e.g. after an LPAR has been activated and the LPAR
> hypervisor needs to reshuffle the CPUs of the different nodes.

But if you don't also update the cpu->node memory mappings (which I
think it near impossible) what good is it to change the scheduler
topology?


--
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/