linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 9/9] sched/deadline: also reclaim bandwidth not used by dl 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]

Message-ID: <20170327164848.510bf8c7@luca>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:48:48 +0200
From:   Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 9/9] sched/deadline: also reclaim bandwidth not used by
 dl tasks

Hi Peter,

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:03:41 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:53:02AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> 
> > +static inline
> > +void __dl_update(struct dl_bw *dl_b, s64 bw)
> > +{
> > +	struct root_domain *rd = container_of(dl_b, struct
> > root_domain, dl_bw);
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_sched_held(),
> > +			 "sched RCU must be held");
> > +	for_each_cpu_and(i, rd->span, cpu_active_mask) {
> > +		struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
> > +
> > +		rq->dl.extra_bw += bw;
> > +	}  
> 
> So this is unfortunate (and we already have one such instance).
> 
> It effectively does an for_each_online_cpu() with IRQs disabled, and
> on SGI class hardware that takes _forever_.

I have to admit I copied this code from somewhere else... :)

I am happy to discuss a better solution.


			Thanks,
				Luca

> 
> This is also what I got stuck on trying to rewrite AC to use Tommaso's
> recoverable thing. In the end I had to do a 2 stage try/commit
> variant. Which ended up being a pain and I didn't finish.
> 
> I'm not saying this patch is bad, but this is something we need to
> thing about.