linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/35] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind

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: <20120529174423.GK21339@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 19:44:23 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/35] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind_node()

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:04:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> doing it without mention and keeping a misleading comment near the
> definition.

Right, I forgot to update the comment, I fixed it now.

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 60a699c..0b84494 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1788,7 +1788,7 @@ extern void thread_group_times(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t *ut, cputime_t *
 #define PF_SWAPWRITE	0x00800000	/* Allowed to write to swap */
 #define PF_SPREAD_PAGE	0x01000000	/* Spread page cache over cpuset */
 #define PF_SPREAD_SLAB	0x02000000	/* Spread some slab caches over cpuset */
-#define PF_THREAD_BOUND	0x04000000	/* Thread bound to specific cpu */
+#define PF_THREAD_BOUND	0x04000000	/* Thread bound to specific cpus */
 #define PF_MCE_EARLY    0x08000000      /* Early kill for mce process policy */
 #define PF_MEMPOLICY	0x10000000	/* Non-default NUMA mempolicy */
 #define PF_MUTEX_TESTER	0x20000000	/* Thread belongs to the rt mutex tester */
 

> Just teach each knuma_migrated what node it represents and don't use
> numa_node_id().

It already works like that, I absolutely never use numa_node_id(), I
always use the pgdat passed as parameter to the kernel thread through
the pointer parameter.

But it'd be totally bad not to do the hard bindings to the cpu_s_ of
the node, and not using PF_THREAD_BOUND would just allow userland to
shoot itself in the foot. I mean if PF_THREAD_BOUND wouldn't exist
already I wouldn't add it, but considering somebody bothered to
implement it for the sake to make userland root user "safer", it'd be
really silly not to take advantage of that for knuma_migrated too
(even if it binds to more than 1 CPU).

Additionally I added a bugcheck in the main knuma_migrated loop:

		VM_BUG_ON(numa_node_id() != pgdat->node_id);

to be sure it never goes wrong. This above bugcheck is what allowed me
to find a bug in the numa emulation fixed in commit
d71b5a73fe9af42752c4329b087f7911b35f8f79.

> That way you can change the affinity just fine, it'll be sub-optimal,
> copying memory from node x to node y through node z, but it'll still
> work correctly.

I don't think allowing userland to do suboptimal things (even if it
will only decrease performance and still work correctly) makes
sense (considering somebody added PF_THREAD_BOUND already and it's
zero cost to use).

> numa isn't special in the way per-cpu stuff is special.

Agreed that it won't be as bad as getting per-cpu stuff wrong, it only
slowdown -50% in the worst case, but it's a guaranteed regression in
the best case too, so there's no reason to allow root to shoot itself
in the foot.
--
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/