| 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: <5433E6AF.5080105@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:12:15 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"juri.lelli@...il.com" <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
"raistlin@...ux.it" <raistlin@...ux.it>,
"michael@...rulasolutions.com" <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
"fchecconi@...il.com" <fchecconi@...il.com>,
"daniel.wagner@...-carit.de" <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
"vincent@...out.info" <vincent@...out.info>,
"luca.abeni@...tn.it" <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/deadline: fix bandwidth check/update when migrating
tasks between exclusive cpusets
Hi Peter,
On 07/10/14 13:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:59:54AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 19/09/14 22:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:22:40AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>> Exclusive cpusets are the only way users can restrict SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
>>>> affinity (performing what is commonly called clustered scheduling).
>>>> Unfortunately, such thing is currently broken for two reasons:
>>>>
>>>> - No check is performed when the user tries to attach a task to
>>>> an exlusive cpuset (recall that exclusive cpusets have an
>>>> associated maximum allowed bandwidth).
>>>>
>>>> - Bandwidths of source and destination cpusets are not correctly
>>>> updated after a task is migrated between them.
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes both things at once, as they are opposite faces
>>>> of the same coin.
>>>>
>>>> The check is performed in cpuset_can_attach(), as there aren't any
>>>> points of failure after that function. The updated is split in two
>>>> halves. We first reserve bandwidth in the destination cpuset, after
>>>> we pass the check in cpuset_can_attach(). And we then release
>>>> bandwidth from the source cpuset when the task's affinity is
>>>> actually changed. Even if there can be time windows when sched_setattr()
>>>> may erroneously fail in the source cpuset, we are fine with it, as
>>>> we can't perfom an atomic update of both cpusets at once.
>>>
>>> The thing I cannot find is if we correctly deal with updates to the
>>> cpuset. Say we first setup 2 (exclusive) sets A:cpu0 B:cpu1-3. Then
>>> assign tasks and then update the cpu masks like: B:cpu2,3, A:cpu1,2.
>>>
>>
>> So, what follows should address the problem you describe.
>>
>> Assuming you intended that we try to update masks as A:cpu0,3 and
>> B:cpu1,2, with what below we are able to check that removing cpu3
>> from B doesn't break guarantees. After that cpu3 can be put in A.
>>
>> Does it make any sense?
>
> Yeah, I think that about covers is. Could you write a changelog with it?
>
Sure. Didn't write it in the first instance because I though to squash it
in 2/3. But it is actually fixing a different issue, so please find it
below.
> The reason I hadn't applied your patch #2 yet is because I thought it
> triggered the splat reported in this thread. But later emails seem to
> suggest this is a separate/pre-existing issue?
>
Right. I think that is a separate (PI related) issue. But we could also
wait for that to be nailed down and then apply all the fixes at once.
As you think is better.
Thanks,
- Juri
>From af75e5f56c9eafacfddad79485149e2e2cb889b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:52:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] sched/deadline: ensure that updates to exclusive cpusets
don't break AC
How we deal with updates to exclusive cpusets is currently broken.
As an example, suppose we have an exclusive cpuset composed of
two cpus: A[cpu0,cpu1]. We can assign SCHED_DEADLINE task to it
up to the allowed bandwidth. If we want now to modify cpusetA's
cpumask, we have to check that removing a cpu's amount of
bandwidth doesn't break AC guarantees. This thing isn't checked
in the current code.
This patch fixes the problem above, denying an update if the
new cpumask won't have enough bandwidth for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
that are currently active.
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++
kernel/cpuset.c | 10 ++++++++++
kernel/sched/core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 163295f..24696d3 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -2041,6 +2041,8 @@ static inline void tsk_restore_flags(struct task_struct *task,
task->flags |= orig_flags & flags;
}
+extern int cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink(const struct cpumask *cur,
+ const struct cpumask *trial);
extern int task_can_attach(struct task_struct *p,
const struct cpumask *cs_cpus_allowed);
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c
index 4a7ebde..f96b47f 100644
--- a/kernel/cpuset.c
+++ b/kernel/cpuset.c
@@ -506,6 +506,16 @@ static int validate_change(struct cpuset *cur, struct cpuset *trial)
goto out;
}
+ /*
+ * We can't shrink if we won't have enough room for SCHED_DEADLINE
+ * tasks.
+ */
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ if (is_cpu_exclusive(cur) &&
+ !cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink(cur->cpus_allowed,
+ trial->cpus_allowed))
+ goto out;
+
ret = 0;
out:
rcu_read_unlock();
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 092143d..b4bd8fa 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4587,6 +4587,25 @@ void init_idle(struct task_struct *idle, int cpu)
#endif
}
+int cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink(const struct cpumask *cur,
+ const struct cpumask *trial)
+{
+ int ret = 1, trial_cpus;
+ struct dl_bw *cur_dl_b;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ cur_dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpumask_any(cur));
+ trial_cpus = cpumask_weight(trial);
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cur_dl_b->lock, flags);
+ if (cur_dl_b->bw != -1 &&
+ cur_dl_b->bw * trial_cpus < cur_dl_b->total_bw)
+ ret = 0;
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cur_dl_b->lock, flags);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
int task_can_attach(struct task_struct *p,
const struct cpumask *cs_cpus_allowed)
{
--
2.1.0
--
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