linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 1/5] sched/core: add capacity constraints to CPU controller

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:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:10:48 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel.opensrc@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/5] sched/core: add capacity constraints to CPU
 controller

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:20:28AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> > On 13-Mar 03:46, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> >> <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> >> > The CPU CGroup controller allows to assign a specified (maximum)
> >> > bandwidth to tasks within a group, however it does not enforce any
> >> > constraint on how such bandwidth can be consumed.
> >> > With the integration of schedutil, the scheduler has now the proper
> >> > information about a task to select  the most suitable frequency to
> >> > satisfy tasks needs.
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> > +static u64 cpu_capacity_min_read_u64(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> >> > +                                    struct cftype *cft)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       struct task_group *tg;
> >> > +       u64 min_capacity;
> >> > +
> >> > +       rcu_read_lock();
> >> > +       tg = css_tg(css);
> >> > +       min_capacity = tg->cap_clamp[CAP_CLAMP_MIN];
> >>
> >> Shouldn't the cap_clamp be accessed with READ_ONCE (and WRITE_ONCE in
> >> the write path) to avoid load-tearing?
> >
> > tg->cap_clamp is an "unsigned int" and thus I would expect a single
> > memory access to write/read it, isn't it? I mean: I do not expect the
> > compiler "to mess" with these accesses.
> 
> This depends on compiler and arch. I'm not sure if its in practice
> these days an issue, but see section on 'load tearing' in
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt . If compiler decided to break down
> the access to multiple accesses due to some reason, then might be a
> problem.

The compiler might also be able to inline cpu_capacity_min_read_u64()
fuse the load from tg->cap_clamp[CAP_CLAMP_MIN] with other accesses.
If min_capacity is used several times in the ensuing code, the compiler
could reload multiple times from tg->cap_clamp[CAP_CLAMP_MIN], which at
best might be a bit confusing.

> Adding Paul for his expert opinion on the matter ;)

My personal approach is to use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() unless
I can absolutely prove that the compiler cannot do any destructive
optimizations.  And I not-infrequently find unsuspected opportunities
for destructive optimization in my own code.  Your mileage may vary.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul