linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock

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:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:59:36 +0900
From:	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock

(2013年08月19日 20:10), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:46:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> Option A:
>
>> Should we flush that iowait to the src CPU? But then it means we must handle
>> concurrent updates to iowait_sleeptime, idle_sleeptime from the migration
>> code and from idle enter / exit.
>>
>> So I fear we need a seqlock.
> Option B:
>
>> Or we can live with that and still account the whole idle time slept until
>> tick_nohz_stop_idle() to iowait if we called tick_nohz_start_idle() with nr_iowait > 0.
>> All we need is just a new field in ts-> that records on which state we entered
>> idle.
>>
>> What do you think?
> I think option B is unworkable. Afaict it could basically caused
> unlimited iowait time. Suppose we have a load-balancer that tries it
> bestestest to sort-left (ie. run a task on the lowest 'free' cpu
> possible) -- the power aware folks are pondering such schemes.
>
> Now suppose we have a small burst of activity and the rightmost cpu gets
> to run something that goes to sleep on iowait.
>
> We'd accrue iowait on that cpu until it wakes up, which could be days
> from now if the load stays low enough, even though the task got to run
> almost instantly on another cpu.
>
> So no, if we need per-cpu iowait time we have to do A.
>
> Since we already have atomics in the io_schedule*() paths, please
> replace those with (seq)locks. Also see if you can place the entire
> iowait accounting thing in a separate cacheline.

I considered option A for a while but, fearing it would be
considered overkill, took a different approach: create a
shadow copy of ->iowait_sleeptime that is always kept
monotonic (artificially in some cases) and use that to
compute the values exported through /proc.

That said, if deemed acceptable, option A is the one I would
choose.
--
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/