linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nohz_full: Make sched_should_stop

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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:42:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz_full: Make sched_should_stop_tick() more
 conservative

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:00:42AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > H is for hierarchy. That counts the total of runnable tasks in the
> > entire child hierarchy. Nr_running is the number of se  entities in
> > the current tree.
> 
> So I think we should at least change cfs_rq->nr_running to
> cfs->h_nr_running, I can send a formal patch if you think it makes
> sense. :-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 1159423..79197df 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
>         }
> 
>         /* Normal multitasking need periodic preemption checks */
> -       if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 1)
> +       if (rq->cfs.h_nr_running > 1)
>                 return false;
> 
>         return true;

So I think that is indeed the right thing here. But looking at this
function I think there's more problems with it.

It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is
incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which
case the RR task will run.

So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after
the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use
fifo_nr_running like this.