linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] nohz: Evaluate tick dependency once on context switch

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: <55810CAA.6010208@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:29:06 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] nohz: Evaluate tick dependency once on context switch

On 06/12/2015 02:16 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 01:36 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> The tick dependency is evaluated on every irq. This is a batch of checks
>> which determine whether it is safe to stop the tick or not. These checks
>> are often split in many details: posix cpu timers, scheduler, sched clock,
>> perf events. Each of which are made of smaller details: posix cpu
>> timer involves checking process wide timers then thread wide timers. Perf
>> involves checking freq events then more per cpu details.
>>
>> Checking these details every time we update the full dynticks state
>> bring avoidable overhead.
>>
>> So lets evaluate these dependencies once on context switch. Then the
>> further dependency checks will be performed through a single state check.
>>
>> This is a first step that can be later optimized by dividing task level
>> dependency, CPU level dependency and global dependency and update
>> each at the right time.
> 
>> +static void tick_nohz_full_update_dependencies(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
>> +
>> +	if (!posix_cpu_timers_can_stop_tick(current))
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_POSIX_CPU_TIMER;
>> +
>> +	if (!perf_event_can_stop_tick())
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_PERF_EVENT;
>> +
>> +	if (!sched_can_stop_tick())
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_SCHED;
>>  
> 
> I see this getting kicked from task work and from ipi
> context, but does it get kicked on task wakeup, when
> we have a second runnable task on a CPU, but we decide
> not to preempt the currently running task to switch to
> it yet, but we will want to preempt the currently running
> task at a later point in time?

+1. This is not taken care of as far as I can see too.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 

--
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/