linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Remove WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature check in entity

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: <1311924975.3938.1583.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:36:15 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Remove WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature check in
 entity_tick

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 15:03 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 02:49:40PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 14:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > > > Currently, entity_tick calls check_preempt_tick if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is
> > > > disabled. That's wrong. It should do that if the feature is enabled.
> > > 
> > > Why is it wrong?
> > > check_preempt_wakeup() is used for wakeup.
> > 
> > I guess you mean "check_preempt_tick" here, yes?
> 
> check_preempt_wakeup() excactly.
> try_to_wake_up()
>   check_preempt_curr()
>     sched_fair->check_preempt_wakeup()  <========== [1]
> 
> > 
> > in entity_tick(...):
> >         if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
> >                 check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);
> > 
> > Note that, above "if" statement says "if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is
> > *disabled* then calls check_preempt_tick".
> 
> Yeah, if !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT) [1] will just return;
> thus new waked task will wait until the next tick to schedule.
> 
> > 
> > Shouldn't it be "if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is *enabled* then ...."?
> 
> So no IMHO.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > And actually the check is duplicate because check_preempt_tick will do
> > > > that. So just remove it from entity_tick.
> > > 
> > > It's not exactly duplicated. entity_tick() will resched_task(*p)
> > > if p's slice is over. So if there is an following wakeup(say X),
> > > then there is an opportunity for X to schedule quickly.
> > 
> > Understood this.
> > 
> > But what I mean is both "entity_tick" and "check_preempt_tick" check
> > WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature. That's duplicated.
> > 
> > Only need to check it in "check_preempt_tick".
> 
> I think we need that check(!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)) in entity_tick()
> to give new waked task better opportunity.

Thanks for your explanation.

>From another point of view, below !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT) still
looks like duplicated.

        if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
                check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);

if "!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)" is run,
that implies cfs_rq->nr_running == 1.

Why do we need to call check_preempt_tick when there is only 1 task
runnable?

Thanks,
Lin Ming


--
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/