linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing update_rq

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: <20160515021439.GC8790@intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 15 May 2016 10:14:39 +0800
From:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing
 update_rq_clock()

Hi Matt,

Thanks for Ccing me.

I am indeed interested, because I recently encountered an rq clock
issue, which is that the clock jumps about 200ms when I was
experimenting the "flat util hierarchy" patches, which really annoyed
me, and I had to stop to figure out what is wrong (but haven't yet
figured out ;))

First, this patchset does not solve my problem, but never mind, by
reviewing your patches, I have some comments:

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:49:53PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>  
> -	rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
> +	/* Clear ACT, preserve everything else */
> +	rq->clock_update_flags ^= RQCF_ACT_SKIP;

The comment says "Clear ACT", but this is really xor, and I am not sure
this is even what you want.

In addition, would it be simpler to do this?

update_rq_clock()
	if (flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP)
		flags <<= 1; /* effective skip is an update */
		return;

	flags = RQCF_UPDATED;

Thanks,
Yuyang