linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Restore env status before goto redo in load

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:49:14 +0800
From:	Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Restore env status before goto redo in load_balance()

On 27 March 2015 at 23:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:31:02PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> From: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
>>
>> In load_balance(), some members of lb_env will be assigned with
>> new values in LBF_DST_PINNED case. But lb_env::flags may still
>> retain LBF_ALL_PINNED if no proper tasks were found afterwards
>> due to another balance, task affinity changing, etc, which can
>> really happen because busiest rq lock has already been released.
>
> Sure..
>
>> This is wrong, for example with env.dst_cpu assigned new_dst_cpu
>> when going back to "redo" label, it may cause should_we_balance()
>> to return false which is unreasonable.
>
> Why? You've got a very unlikely, very hard case, its unlikely that
> anything we do will substantially improve the situation, but you make
> the code uglier for it.
>
>> This patch restores proper status of env before "goto redo", and
>> improves "out_all_pinned" and "out_one_pinned" labels.
>
> That doesn't even begin to explain half of what the patch does.
>
>> @@ -6977,12 +6978,19 @@ more_balance:
>>               /* All tasks on this runqueue were pinned by CPU affinity */
>>               if (unlikely(env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED)) {
>>                       cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu_of(busiest), cpus);
>> -                     if (!cpumask_empty(cpus)) {
>> -                             env.loop = 0;
>> -                             env.loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break;
>> -                             goto redo;
>> +                     if (env.new_dst_cpu != -1) {
>
> I really don't get this, how can this not be?
>
>> +                             env.new_dst_cpu = -1;
>> +                             cpumask_or(cpus, cpus,
>> +                                     sched_group_cpus(sd->groups));
>> +                             cpumask_and(cpus, cpus, cpu_active_mask);
>
> More unexplained magic, why is this right?

When LBF_DST_PINNED was set, after going back to "more_balance",
things may change as the changelog describes, so it can hit
LBF_ALL_PINNED afterwards. Then env.cpus, env.dst_rq, env.dst_cpu held
the values assigned in the LBF_DST_PINNED case which is unreasonable.
When we want to redo, we must reset those values.

>
> The rest of the patch isn't much better.
--
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/