| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20120731044314.326949038@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:43:29 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [ 19/73] sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load calculations some more
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
commit 5aaa0b7a2ed5b12692c9ffb5222182bd558d3146 upstream.
Follow up on commit 556061b00 ("sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[]
calculations") since while that fixed the busy case it regressed the
mostly idle case.
Add a callback from the nohz exit to also age the rq->cpu_load[]
array. This closes the hole where either there was no nohz load
balance pass during the nohz, or there was a 'significant' amount of
idle time between the last nohz balance and the nohz exit.
So we'll update unconditionally from the tick to not insert any
accidental 0 load periods while busy, and we try and catch up from
nohz idle balance and nohz exit. Both these are still prone to missing
a jiffy, but that has always been the case.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: pjt@...gle.com
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-kt0trz0apodbf84ucjfdbr1a@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2: adjust filenames and context]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ extern unsigned long this_cpu_load(void)
extern void calc_global_load(unsigned long ticks);
+extern void update_cpu_load_nohz(void);
extern unsigned long get_parent_ip(unsigned long addr);
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3886,25 +3886,32 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq
sched_avg_update(this_rq);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
+/*
+ * There is no sane way to deal with nohz on smp when using jiffies because the
+ * cpu doing the jiffies update might drift wrt the cpu doing the jiffy reading
+ * causing off-by-one errors in observed deltas; {0,2} instead of {1,1}.
+ *
+ * Therefore we cannot use the delta approach from the regular tick since that
+ * would seriously skew the load calculation. However we'll make do for those
+ * updates happening while idle (nohz_idle_balance) or coming out of idle
+ * (tick_nohz_idle_exit).
+ *
+ * This means we might still be one tick off for nohz periods.
+ */
+
/*
* Called from nohz_idle_balance() to update the load ratings before doing the
* idle balance.
*/
static void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
{
- unsigned long curr_jiffies = jiffies;
+ unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
unsigned long pending_updates;
/*
- * Bloody broken means of dealing with nohz, but better than nothing..
- * jiffies is updated by one cpu, another cpu can drift wrt the jiffy
- * update and see 0 difference the one time and 2 the next, even though
- * we ticked at roughtly the same rate.
- *
- * Hence we only use this from nohz_idle_balance() and skip this
- * nonsense when called from the scheduler_tick() since that's
- * guaranteed a stable rate.
+ * bail if there's load or we're actually up-to-date.
*/
if (load || curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
return;
@@ -3916,12 +3923,38 @@ static void update_idle_cpu_load(struct
}
/*
+ * Called from tick_nohz_idle_exit() -- try and fix up the ticks we missed.
+ */
+void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
+{
+ struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
+ unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
+ unsigned long pending_updates;
+
+ if (curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
+ return;
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+ pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
+ if (pending_updates) {
+ this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
+ /*
+ * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
+ * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
+ */
+ __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ */
+
+/*
* Called from scheduler_tick()
*/
static void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
{
/*
- * See the mess in update_idle_cpu_load().
+ * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
*/
this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
__update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -549,6 +549,7 @@ void tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick(void)
/* Update jiffies first */
select_nohz_load_balancer(0);
tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
+ update_cpu_load_nohz();
#ifndef CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
/*
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists