linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Fix rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT

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: <20180403123948.GA4771@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:39:48 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, efault@....de,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Fix rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
 warning

On Mon, 02 Apr, at 09:49:54AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 
> We can get rid of it be the "traditional" means of adding an update_rq_clock() call
> after acquiring the rq->lock in do_sched_rt_period_timer().
> 
> The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be ignored in
> that the skip_update call is actually bogus and quite the contrary (the request bits
> are removed/reverted). By setting RQCF_UPDATED we really don't care if the skip is
> happening or not and will therefore make the assert_clock_updated() check happy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/rt.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 86b77987435e..ad13e6242481 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -839,6 +839,8 @@ static int do_sched_rt_period_timer(struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b, int overrun)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +		update_rq_clock(rq);
> +
>  		if (rt_rq->rt_time) {
>  			u64 runtime;

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>