linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix calc_cfs

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: <CAPM31RKZkrT=6mg=eeBCVmwY7Put-Pu+46Osw_TR56YXz-+esg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:26:19 -0800
From:   Paul Turner <pjt@...nel.org>
To:     Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix calc_cfs_shares fixed point arithmetics

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Samuel Thibault
<samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org> wrote:
> Paul Turner, on Mon 19 Dec 2016 14:44:38 -0800, wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Samuel Thibault
>> <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org> wrote:
>> > 2159197d6677 ("sched/core: Enable increased load resolution on 64-bit kernels")
>> >
>> > exposed yet another miscalculation in calc_cfs_shares: MIN_SHARES is unscaled,
>> > and must thus be scaled before being manipulated against "shares" amounts.
>>
>> It's actually intentional that MIN_SHARES is un-scaled here, this is
>> necessary to support the goal of sub-partitioning groups with small
>> shares.
>
> Uh? you mean it's normal that MIN_SHARES is here compared as such
> against "shares" while e.g. in sched_group_set_shares or effective_load
> it is scaled before comparing with "shares"?

Yes.

sched_group_set_shares() controls the amount allocated to the group.

Both calc_cfs_shares() and effective_load() are subdividing this
total.  Which is why it is scaled up from the external value of 2.

>
>> E.g.  A group with shares=2 and 5 threads will internally provide 2048
>> units of weight for the load-balancer to account for their
>> distribution.
>
> But here "shares" is already scaled, so
>
>> > -       if (shares < MIN_SHARES)
>> > -               shares = MIN_SHARES;
> ...
>> >         return shares;
>
> This will only make sure that the returned shares is 2, not 2048.

This is intentional.  The MIN_SHARES you are seeing here is overloaded.
Every "1" unit of share is "SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION" bits internally.
We express a minimum of "2" in terms of the unit weight due to larger
numerical errors in the "1" case.
In the unscaled case this needs to be MIN_SHARES, and in the scaled
case, the subdivision of the scaled values must still be >=2.

To make this concrete:
In this case we can then internally say that there are (internally)
~410 units of weight for each of these 5 threads.
Thus, if one cpu has 4 threads and another 1, we see that as a
1640/410 imbalance, not a 2048/2048 balance.

>
> Samuel