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]

Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:31:52 +0100
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, 09 Mar 2011 14:19:29 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> 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?

The memory for the different LPARs is striped over all nodes (or books as we
call them). We heavily rely on the large shared cache between the books to hide
the different memory access latencies.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/