linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/2] sched/deadline: Use deadline instead of period when calculating overflow

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: <20170215133136.664c1bfe@luca>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:31:36 +0100
From:   Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Romulo Silva de Oliveira <romulo.deoliveira@...c.br>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] sched/deadline: Use deadline instead of period when
 calculating overflow

Hi Juri,

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +0000
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
[...]
> > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can result in a task
> > consuming more than the reserved utilisation. I still need some
> > time to convince me that "runtime / (deadline - t) > dl_runtime /
> > dl_deadline" is the correct check to use (in this case, shouldn't
> > we also change the admission test to use densities instead of
> > utilisations?) 
> 
> Right, this is what I was wondering as well, as dl_overflow()
> currently looks at the period. And I also have some recollection of
> this discussion happening already in the past, unfortunately it was
> not on the list.
> 
> That discussion started with the following patch
[...]
> that we then dediced not to propose since (note that these are just my
> memories of the dicussion, so everything it's up for further
> discussion, also in light of the problem highlighted by Daniel)
> 
>  - SCHED_DEADLINE, as the documentation says, does AC using
> utilization
>  - it is however true that a sufficient (but not necessary) test on
> UP for D_i != P_i cases is the one of my patch above
>  - we have agreed in the past that the kernel should only check that
> we don't cause "overload" in the system (which is still the case if we
>    consider utilizations), not "hard schedulability"
I remember a similar discussion; I think the decision about what to do
depends on what are the requirements: hard deadline guarantees (but in
this case global EDF is just a bad choice) or tardines no overload
guarantees?

My understanding was that the kernel guarantees that deadline tasks
will not starve non-deadline tasks, and that there is an upper bound
for the tardiness experienced by deadline tasks. If this understanding
is correct, then the current admission test is ok. But if I
misunderstood the purpose of the kernel admission test, then maybe your
patch is ok.

Then, it is important to keep the admission test consistent with the
checks performed in dl_entity_overflow() (but whatever we decide to do,
dl_entity_overflow() should be fixed).


				Luca

>  - also because on SMP systems "sum(WCET_i / min{D_i, P_i}) <= M"
>    doesn't guarantee much more than the test base on P_i only (there
> not seem to be many/any papers around considering the D_i != P_i case
> on SMP actually)
>  - basically the patch above would only matter for the UP/partitioned
>    cases
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Juri