linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task

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:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:10:59 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	roland@...nel.org, efault@....de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its
 group as target of (pinned) task

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2012-06-20 19:38:21]:

> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:43 +0530, Prashanth Nageshappa wrote:
> > T2 will starve eternally in this case. The same
> > scenario can arise in presence of non-rt tasks as well (say we replace F1 with
> > high irq load or with a very high priority SCHED_OTHER task that can't move out
> > of C2). 
> 
> Uhm, no. In the case where both F1 and T2 are SCHED_OTHER starvation is
> impossible.
> 
> What can happen with pure SCHED_OTHER affinities is being less fair than
> desired.

Right ..sorry should have made that more explicit in the description.

> Anyway, I took the patch with a few minor edits

Thanks!

> -- ie. we don't need to
> reset loop_break, its never changed (same for the ALL_PINNED patch you
> sent).

Hmm ..I can see loop_break being incremented here:

                /* take a breather every nr_migrate tasks */
                if (env->loop > env->loop_break) {
                        env->loop_break += sched_nr_migrate_break;
                        env->flags |= LBF_NEED_BREAK;
                        goto out;
                }

As a result, when we redo with a different src_cpu, both loop and
loop_break could be at non-default values.  Am I missing something here?

- vatsa

--
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/