linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race window.

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:   Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:11:49 -0600
From:   Atish Patra <atish.patra@...cle.com>
To:     Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race
 window.



On 2017/11/23 10:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 11:52 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>>> Hello, Atish, Peter, all.
>>>
>>> I have a question about if a task's nr_cpus_allowed is 1.
>>> In that scenario we do not call select_task_rq. Therefore
>>> even thought a task "p" is placed on idle CPU that CPU
>>> will not be marked as claimed for wake-up.
>>>
>>> What do you think about adding per_cpu(claim_wakeup, cpu) = 1;
>>> to select_task_rq() instead and possibly get rid of them from
>>> other places (increases a race window a bit)?
>> My thoughts on all of this is that we need less SIS, not more.  Rather
>> than trying so hard for the absolute lowest wakeup latency, which
>> induces throughput/efficiency robbing bouncing, I think we'd be better
>> of considering leaving an already llc affine task where it is if the
>> average cycle time is sufficiently low that it will likely hit the CPU
>> RSN.  Completely ignoring low utilization kernel threads would go a
>> long way to getting rid of bouncing userspace (which tends to have a
>> meaningful footprint), all over hell and creation.
>>
>> You could also periodically send mobile kthreads down the slow path to
>> try to keep them the hell away from partially busy CPUs, as well as
>> anything else that hasn't run for a while, to keep background cruft
>> from continually injecting itself into the middle of a cross core
>> cyber-sex.
>>
> And on this thanksgiving I'm thankful for Mike, and his entertaining early
> morning emails.
:) :).
> Josef