| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:42:52 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yuyang.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix lose fair sleeper bonus in switch_to_fair()
On 9/8/15 2:32 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:14:26PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:38:08PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> On 9/8/15 1:28 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:46:01AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/15 10:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> Please always Cc at least the person who wrote the lines you modify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:45:20PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>>> The sleeper task will be normalized when moved from fair_sched_class, in
>>>>>>> order that vruntime will be adjusted either the task is running or sleeping
>>>>>>> when moved back. The nomalization in switch_to_fair for sleep task will
>>>>>>> result in lose fair sleeper bonus in place_entity() once the vruntime -
>>>>>>> cfs_rq->min_vruntime is big when moved from fair_sched_class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch fix it by adjusting vruntime just during migrating as original
>>>>>>> codes since the vruntime of the task has usually NOT been normalized in
>>>>>>> this case.
>>>>>> Sorry, I cannot follow that at all. Maybe its me being sleep deprived,
>>>>>> but could you try that again?
>>>>> When changing away from the fair class while sleeping, relative
>>>>> vruntime is calculated to handle the case sleep when moved from
>>>>> fair_sched_class and running when moved to fair_sched_class. The
>>>> i don't think relative vruntime is calculated to handle the special case
>>>> you mentioned. i think the calculation is necessary for all cases detaching
>>> Please refer why the relative vruntime caculation is introduced to
>>> switched_from_fair(): https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/129
>> hello,
>>
>> it is just a bug caused by not calculating a relative vruntime when
>> detached a task from cfs_rq, which is necessary though.
>>
>>>> a task from a cfs_rq.
>>>>
>>>>> absolute vruntime will be calculated in enqueue_entity() either the
>>>>> task is running or sleeping when moved back. The fair sleeper bonus
>>>> i think absolute vruntime is calculated in enqueue_entuty() only when the
>>>> task is on rq. therefore in the case that the task is not on rq,
>>>> switched_to_fair() has to calculate the absolute vruntime instread.
>>> Absolute vruntime is caculated in place_entity() which is called by
>>> enqueue_entity() for DEQUEUE_SLEEP task.
>> as you may know, place_entity() is not for calculating an absolute
>> vruntime though.. anyway the important thing here is that, when a
>> sleeping task is moved back to fair class, enqueue_entity() for
>> DEQUEUE_SLEEP task won't be called.
> you may talk about calling enqueue_entity() when the task is woken up,
> not just when it is moved back. right?
Exactly.
>
> even if yes, i think place_entity() should not be used directly for
> calculating an absolute vruntime. it should be called after non/normalizing
> operations.
The se->vruntime += cfs_rq->min_vruntime(in your switched_to_fair())
which means that se->vruntime is bigger than cfs_rq->min_vruntime,
however, fair sleeper bonus is min_vuntime - sysctl_sched_latency/2,
which means that max_vruntime() will select the absolute vruntime which
is caculated in your switched_to_fair() as the se->vruntime, then the
fair sleeper bonus is lost in this case.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
>
>> thanks,
>> byungchul
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Wanpeng Li
>>>
>>>>> should be gained in place_entity() if the task is still sleeping.
>>>>> However, after recent commit ( 23ec30ddd7c1306: 'sched: add two
>>>>> functions for att(det)aching a task to(from) a cfs_rq'), the
>>>>> absolute vruntime will be calculated in switched_to_fair(), so the
>>>>> max_vruntime() which is called in place_entity() will select the
>>>>> absolute vruntime which is calculated in switched_to_fair() as the
>>>>> se->vruntime and lose the fair sleeper bonus.
>>>> please refer my another reply, and let me know if i missed something.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> byungchul
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Wanpeng Li
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 +++++++----
>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> index d26d3b7..eb9aa35 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> @@ -8005,9 +8005,6 @@ static void attach_task_cfs_rq(struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>>> /* Synchronize task with its cfs_rq */
>>>>>>> attach_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> - if (!vruntime_normalized(p))
>>>>>>> - se->vruntime += cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> static void switched_from_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>>> @@ -8066,14 +8063,20 @@ void init_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
>>>>>>> static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> + struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
>>>>>>> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> detach_task_cfs_rq(p);
>>>>>>> set_task_rq(p, task_cpu(p));
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>>>>> /* Tell se's cfs_rq has been changed -- migrated */
>>>>>>> - p->se.avg.last_update_time = 0;
>>>>>>> + se->avg.last_update_time = 0;
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>> attach_task_cfs_rq(p);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!vruntime_normalized(p))
>>>>>>> + se->vruntime += cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> void free_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 1.7.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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/
>> --
>> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists