linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr

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: <20150710133107.GC8668@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:31:10 +0100
From:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To:	byungchul.park@....com
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 05:11:30PM +0900, byungchul.park@....com wrote:
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> 
> __sched_period() returns a period which a rq can have. the period has to be
> stretched by the number of task *the rq has*, when nr_running > nr_latency.
> otherwise, task slice can be very smaller than sysctl_sched_min_granularity
> depending on the position of tg hierarchy when CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 09456fc..8ae7aeb 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
>   */
>  static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>  {
> -	u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
> +	u64 slice = __sched_period(rq_of(cfs_rq)->nr_running + !se->on_rq);

This would stretch the period to fit rq->cfs.h_nr_running (which is
equal to rq.nr_running), but I still think that the slice may be smaller
than sched_min_granularity for low priority tasks since the slice is
scaled by priority.

Also, I'm not sure if we want to enforce sched_slice >=
sched_min_granularity, it would mean that tasks inside task groups can
stretch the overall period and increase latency for non-grouped tasks.
--
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/