linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/32] nohz: Move ts->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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1314640789.2816.122.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:59:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/32] nohz: Move ts->idle_calls into strict idle logic

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 19:34 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > +static bool tick_nohz_can_stop_tick(int cpu, struct tick_sched *ts)
> > > +{
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * If this cpu is offline and it is the one which updates
> > > +        * jiffies, then give up the assignment and let it be taken by
> > > +        * the cpu which runs the tick timer next. If we don't drop
> > > +        * this here the jiffies might be stale and do_timer() never
> > > +        * invoked.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (unlikely(!cpu_online(cpu))) {
> > > +               if (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu)
> > > +                       tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (unlikely(ts->nohz_mode == NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE))
> > > +               return false;
> > > +
> > > +       if (need_resched())
> > > +               return false;
> > > +
> > > +       if (unlikely(local_softirq_pending() && cpu_online(cpu))) {
> > > +               static int ratelimit;
> > > +
> > > +               if (ratelimit < 10) {
> > > +                       printk(KERN_ERR "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending %02x\n",
> > > +                              (unsigned int) local_softirq_pending());
> > > +                       ratelimit++;
> > > +               }
> > > +               return false;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       return true;
> > > +} 
> > 
> > Why aren't rcu_needs_cpu(), printk_needs_cpu() and arch_needs_cpu() not
> > in there?
> > 
> > That are typical 'can we go sleep now?' functions.
> 
> Because when one of these functions are positive, the ts->next_jiffies and
> ts->last_jiffies stats are updated. Not with the above.
> Also I start to think the above checks are only useful in the idle case.

Then call it tick_nohz_can_stop_tick_idle() or so, and create
tick_nohz_can_stop_tick() to deal with all stuff.

> We still want tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() to have the *needs_cpu() checks
> so that they can restore a HZ periodic behaviour on interrupt return if
> needed.

Well, no, on interrupt return you shouldn't do anything. If you've
stopped the tick it stays stopped until you do something that needs it,
then that action will re-enable it.

> That said I wonder if some of the above conditions should restore a periodic
> behaviour on interrupt return...

I would expect the tick not to be stopped when tick_nohz_can_stop_tick()
returns false. If it returns true, then I expect anything that needs it
to re-enable it.

--
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/