linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: force update of blocked load of idle cpus

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:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:53:12 +0000
From:   Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>
To:     Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: force update of blocked load of idle cpus

Hi Todd,

On Thu, Nov 09 2017 at 19:56, Todd Kjos wrote:
>> @@ -8683,6 +8692,10 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(void)
>>
>>         if (test_and_set_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu)))
>>                 return;
>> +
>> +       if (only_update)
>> +               set_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));
>
> Should there be an "else clear_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));" ?
>
> Seems like any time this is called as !only_update, we should stop
> inhibiting rebalance. In fact, we should perhaps go a little further
> so that an only_update never inhibits rebalance from a concurrent
> !only_update.

Yes, I think you are essentially right. To make sure I understand you: I
guess you are saying that where two CPUs are concurrently in
nohz_balancer_kick, one with only_update=1 and one with only_update=0,
the former should not prevent the latter from triggering a full load
balance. (I'm assuming they both get the same value for ilb_cpu).

The exact solution you described won't work: only one of those CPUs can
get to this line of code, because of the test_and_set_bit above. So I
think we need something like:

       if (test_and_set_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu))) {
               if (!only_update) {
                      /*
                       * There's a pending stats kick or an ongoing
                       * nohz_idle balance that's just for stats.
                       * Convert it to a proper nohz balance.
                       */
                      clear_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));
               }
               return;
       }

       if (only_update)
               set_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));

There's still scope for some lost rebalance_domains calls, but as
Vincent pointed out in a recent chat, because the rq->next_balance
fields won't be changed for the CPUs they get missed out, those will
only be delayed until the next scheduler_tick.

I'm on holiday ATM, I'll get to testing that when I get back.

Thanks for the review,
Brendan