linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: add util

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: <20171215140751.3ajilhsmj4zhzhzy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:07:51 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 02:02:18PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 13-Dec 17:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:10:16PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > +	if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 0) {
> > > +		util_est  = cfs_rq->util_est_runnable;
> > > +		util_est -= task_util_est(p);
> > > +		if (util_est < 0)
> > > +			util_est = 0;
> > > +		cfs_rq->util_est_runnable = util_est;
> > > +	} else {
> > 
> > I'm thinking that's an explicit load-store to avoid intermediate values
> > landing in cfs_rq->util_esp_runnable, right?
> 
> Was mainly to have an unsigned util_est for the following "sub"...
> 
> 
> > That would need READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE() I think, without that the
> > compiler is free to munge the lot together.
> 
> ... do we still need the {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in this case?
> I guess adding them however does not hurts.

I think the compiler is free to munge it into something like:

	cfs_rq->util_est_runnable -= task_util_est();
	if (cfs_rq->util_est_runnable < 0)
		cfs_rq->util_est_runnable = 0

and its a fairly simple optimization at that, it just needs to observe
that util_est is an alias for cfs_rq->util_est_runnable.

Using the volatile load/store completely destroys that optimization
though, so yes, I'd say its definitely needed.