linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: sync with the prev cfs when changing cgroup within a cpu

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

Message-ID: <20150810234713.GJ3956@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:47:13 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: sync with the prev cfs when changing cgroup
 within a cpu

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:47:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:08:59PM +0900, byungchul.park@....com wrote:
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > 
> > current code seems to be wrong with cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg when changing
> > a task's cgroup(=cfs_rq) to another. i tested with "echo pid > cgroup" and
> > found that cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg became larger and larger whenever i
> > changed a cgroup to another again and again.
> > 
> > it is possible to move between groups within a cpu, and each cfs_rq is
> > tracking its own blocked load. so we have to sync se's average load with
> > both *prev* cfs_rq and next cfs_rq when changing its group.
> > 
> > in addition, "#ifdef CONFIG_SMP" is removed becasuse we need to sync a
> > se's load with its cfs_rq even in the case of !SMP. remember it is possible
> > to move between groups in *a* cpu.
> > 
> > i also removed some comments mentioning migration_task_rq_fair().
> > migration_task_rq_fair() can be called in three cases. and in each case,
> > both decay counter and blocked load are already considered. so we
> > don't need to consider these in task_move_group_fair() at all.
> > 
> > 1. the wake-up migration case
> > enqueue_entity_load_avg() makes se->avg.decay_count zero after applying it.
> > and it will be woken up soon so we don't need to add its load to
> > cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg.
> > 
> > 2. the fork balancing case
> > se->avg.decay_count is initialized in __sched_fork() to zero. and
> > wake_up_new_task() calls activate_task() with flag = 0 so that
> > enqueue_entity_load_avg() can omit adding its load to
> > cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, and it will be woken up soon.
> > 
> > 3. the rq migration case (not wake up case)
> > the target task is already on rq, so we don't need to consider both its
> > decay counter and blocked load in this case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> 
> What code is this against? Please look at current code and try again.

at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git,
i used master branch 4.2-rc5. do i have to use something else?

> --
> 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/
--
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/