linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

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: <20170724095454.32e873d9@luca>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2017 09:54:54 +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 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active
 utilization

Hi Peter,

I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?
In the first case, what is the correct authorship / SOB chain (I ask
because I keep getting this wrong every time :)


			Thanks,
				Luca

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:23:51 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> > @@ -2518,6 +2520,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
> >  		   !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
> >  		__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> >  		__dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
> > +		dl_change_utilization(p, new_bw);
> >  		err = 0;  
> 
> Every time I see that I want to do this..
> 
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c     | 4 ++--
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 2 +-
>  kernel/sched/sched.h    | 2 +-
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 3b31fc05a0f1..b845ee4b3e55 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2512,11 +2512,11 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
>  		err = 0;
>  	} else if (dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
>  		   !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
> -		__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> +		__dl_sub(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
>  		__dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
>  		err = 0;
>  	} else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p)) {
> -		__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> +		__dl_sub(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
>  		err = 0;
>  	}
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index a2ce59015642..229660088138 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1695,7 +1695,7 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_dl(struct task_struct *p,
>  		 * until we complete the update.
>  		 */
>  		raw_spin_lock(&src_dl_b->lock);
> -		__dl_clear(src_dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> +		__dl_sub(src_dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&src_dl_b->lock);
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 5cbf92214ad8..1a521324ecee 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ struct dl_bw {
>  };
>  
>  static inline
> -void __dl_clear(struct dl_bw *dl_b, u64 tsk_bw)
> +void __dl_sub(struct dl_bw *dl_b, u64 tsk_bw)
>  {
>  	dl_b->total_bw -= tsk_bw;
>  }