linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

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: <20160119134739.GY6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:47:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:20:13PM +0100, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 01/14/2016 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:24:49PM +0100, Luca Abeni wrote:
> >>This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for
> >>thracking the active utilisation: instead of decreasing it when a
> >>task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the
> >>"Inactive" task state of the GRUB algorithm) to decrease the
> >>active utilisaation at the so called "0-lag time".
> >
> >See also the large-ish comment in __setparam_dl().
> >
> >If we go do proper 0-lag, as GRUB requires, then we might as well use it
> >for that.
> Just to check if I understand correctly:
> I would need to remove "dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;" from task_dead_dl(),
> and __dl_clear() from "else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p))"
> in dl_overflow(). Then, arm the inactive_timer in these cases, and add the
> __dl_clear() in the "if (!dl_task(p))" in inactive_task_timer()... Right?

Correct.

> If this understanding is correct (modulo some details that I'll figure out
> during testing), I'll try this.

Yes, there's bound to be 'fun' details..

> In theory, the inactive_timer would be the right place to also decrease
> the active utilisation when a task switches from SCHED_DEADLINE to something
> else... But this is problematic if the task migrates after switching from
> SCHED_DEADLINE and before the timer fires.

urgh, yes.. details :-)