linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Update the rq clock before detaching tasks

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:   Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:37:45 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Update the rq clock before detaching
 tasks

On Mon, 03 Oct, at 02:49:07PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > detach_task_cfs_rq() may indirectly call rq_clock() to inform the
> > cpufreq code that the rq utilisation has changed. In which case, we
> > need to update the rq clock.
> 
> Hurm,. so it would've been good to know the callchain that got you
> there.
> 
> There's two functions that use detach_task_cfs_rq(), one is through
> sched_change_group() and that does indeed lack a rq_clock update.
> 
> The other is through switched_from() where its far harder (but still
> possible afaict) to miss the update.
 
It was the former callchain.

> Now, neither cases are really fast paths, but it would be good to try
> and avoid too many update_rq_clock() calls in the same rq-lock section.
> So I'm not entirely sure about the placement here.
> 
> But let me go stare at the actual debug framework thing first.. I think
> this patch is fallout/fixups from that.