linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched: consider missed ticks when updating global cpu 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20151013083718.GT6455@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:37:18 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, fweisbec@...il.com
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched: consider missed ticks when updating global
 cpu load

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:04:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:45:35PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > I think it will take more than a single patch to rework all of
> > > update_process_times(). And we should also ask Thomas for his opinion,
> > > but I think we want:
> > > 
> > > 	- make update_process_times() take a nr_ticks argument
> > > 	  - fixup everything below it
> > > 
> > > 	- fix tick_nohz_handler to not ignore the hrtimer_forward()
> > > 	  return value and pass it into
> > > 	  tick_sched_handle()/update_process_times().
> > > 
> > > 	  (assuming this is the right oneshot tick part, tick-common
> > > 	  seems to be about periodic timers which aren't used much ?!)
> > 
> > this_nohz_handler() is the low res nohz handler. tick_sched_handle()
> > is the high res one (I should rename these). I think we should rather

i also think frederic was confused..

> > find out the pending updates from update_process_times() itself and pass
> > it to scheduler_tick() which is the one interested in it.
> 
> tick_nohz_handler() calls tick_sched_handler() ?!
> 
> And tick_nohz_handler() actually computes the number of ticks -- which
> we then happily ignore.
> 
> Why compute it again a few functions down?

i think so.

additionally, i think it would be better to assume that scheduler_tick()
handles 1 tick as peter said e.g. because of virt, and to handle the
case caused by full NOHZ *in the nohz related code*.

> --
> 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/