linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] 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: <20180307114711.GB2211@e110439-lin>
Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:47:11 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT

On 06-Mar 20:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:01:50PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +struct util_est {
> > +	unsigned int			enqueued;
> > +	unsigned int			ewma;
> > +#define UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT		2
> > +};
> 
> > +	ue = READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est);
> 
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est, ue);
> 
> That is actually quite dodgy... and relies on the fact that we have the
> 8 byte case in __write_once_size() and __read_once_size()
> unconditionally. It then further relies on the compiler DTRT for 32bit
> platforms, which is generating 2 32bit loads/stores.
>
> The advantage is of course that it will use single u64 loads/stores
> where available.

Yes, that's mainly an "optimization" for 64bit targets... but perhaps
the benefits are negligible.

Do you prefer to keep more "under control" the generated code by using
two {READ,WRITE}_ONCEs?

IMO here we can also go with just the WRITE_ONCEs. I don't see a case
for the compiler to mangle load/store. While the WRITE_ONCE are still
required to sync with non rq-lock serialized code.
But... maybe I'm missing something... ?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi