linux-kernel - [ 55/68] vhost: dont forget to schedule()

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: <20120712175040.306342694@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:02:29 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Nadav HarEl <nyh@...ibm.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: [ 55/68] vhost: dont forget to schedule()

From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

3.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Nadav Har'El <nyh@...h.technion.ac.il>

commit d550dda192c1bd039afb774b99485e88b70d7cb8 upstream.

This is a tiny, but important, patch to vhost.

Vhost's worker thread only called schedule() when it had no work to do, and
it wanted to go to sleep. But if there's always work to do, e.g., the guest
is running a network-intensive program like netperf with small message sizes,
schedule() was *never* called. This had several negative implications (on
non-preemptive kernels):

 1. Passing time was not properly accounted to the "vhost" process (ps and
    top would wrongly show it using zero CPU time).

 2. Sometimes error messages about RCU timeouts would be printed, if the
    core running the vhost thread didn't schedule() for a very long time.

 3. Worst of all, a vhost thread would "hog" the core. If several vhost
    threads need to share the same core, typically one would get most of the
    CPU time (and its associated guest most of the performance), while the
    others hardly get any work done.

The trivial solution is to add

	if (need_resched())
		schedule();

After doing every piece of work. This will not do the heavy schedule() all
the time, just when the timer interrupt decided a reschedule is warranted
(so need_resched returns true).

Thanks to Abel Gordon for this patch.

Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El <nyh@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/vhost/vhost.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data)
 		if (work) {
 			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 			work->fn(work);
+			if (need_resched())
+				schedule();
 		} else
 			schedule();

--
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/