linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] sched,idle: need resched polling rework

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: <CALCETrWJZ1-T+qOY9v=KBOSJkck7YYe7khw_dYPc9Ar8WFgMKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:00:23 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] sched,idle: need resched polling rework

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
> IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
> and then nothing... :-)
>
> So here's a number of patches that implement something near what we left off
> with.
>
> Its only been compile/boot tested on x86_64, I've no actually looked at the IPI
> numbers yet.
>

Looks generally good and it should be a nice cleanup.

That being said, I think that this addresses once one of the two major
issues.  While the race you're fixing is more interesting, I think its
impact is dwarfed by the fact that ttwu_queue_remote completely
ignores polling.  (NB: I haven't actually tested this patch set, but I
did try to instrument this stuff awhile ago.)

To fix this, presumably the wake-from-idle path needs a
sched_ttwu_pending call, and ttwu_queue_remote could use resched_task.
 sched_ttwu_pending could benefit from a straightforward optimization:
it doesn't need rq->lock if llist is empty.

If you're not planning on trying to fix that, I can try to write up a
patch in the next day or two.

Even with all of this fixed, what happens when ttwu_queue_remote is
called with a task that has lower priority than whatever is currently
running on the targeted cpu?  I think the result is an IPI that serves
very little purpose other than avoiding taking a spinlock in the
waking thread.  This may be a bad tradeoff.  I doubt that this matters
for my particular workload, though.

--Andy
--
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/