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, 19 Jan 2016 19:56:47 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:22:11PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:08:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:01:28PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > The cpu load update on tick doesn't care about dynticks and as such is > > > buggy when occuring on nohz ticks (including idle ticks) as it resets > > > the jiffies snapshot that was recorded on nohz entry. We eventually > > > ignore the potentially long tickless load that happened before the > > > tick. > > > > I don't get it, how can we call scheduler_tick() while > > tick_nohz_tick_stopped() ? > > tick_nohz_tick_stopped() (which is ts->tick_stopped == 1) doesn't actually > mean that the tick is really stopped. It just means that the tick fires only > when it's really needed (timer list expired, RCU stuff, irq_work, ...). That's insane and broken. Fix _that_. If RCU, irq_work etc.. needs the tick, do not stop the tick.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists