linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/nohz: Skip remote tick on idle task entirely

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180702124443.GN2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:44:43 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Jacek Tomaka <jacekt@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/nohz: Skip remote tick on idle task entirely

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 06:29:41PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 78d8fac..da8f121 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3127,16 +3127,18 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct *work)
>  		u64 delta;
>  
>  		rq_lock_irq(rq, &rf);
> -		update_rq_clock(rq);
>  		curr = rq->curr;
> -		delta = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
> +		if (!is_idle_task(curr)) {
> +			update_rq_clock(rq);
> +			delta = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
>  
> -		/*
> -		 * Make sure the next tick runs within a reasonable
> -		 * amount of time.
> -		 */
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 3);
> -		curr->sched_class->task_tick(rq, curr, 0);
> +			/*
> +			 * Make sure the next tick runs within a reasonable
> +			 * amount of time.
> +			 */
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 3);
> +			curr->sched_class->task_tick(rq, curr, 0);
> +		}
>  		rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>  	}

Instead of deep indent, how about we write it like so: ?

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3113,7 +3113,9 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct wor
 	struct tick_work *twork = container_of(dwork, struct tick_work, work);
 	int cpu = twork->cpu;
 	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+	struct task_struct *curr;
 	struct rq_flags rf;
+	u64 delta;
 
 	/*
 	 * Handle the tick only if it appears the remote CPU is running in full
@@ -3122,26 +3124,28 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct wor
 	 * statistics and checks timeslices in a time-independent way, regardless
 	 * of when exactly it is running.
 	 */
-	if (!idle_cpu(cpu) && tick_nohz_tick_stopped_cpu(cpu)) {
-		struct task_struct *curr;
-		u64 delta;
-
-		rq_lock_irq(rq, &rf);
-		curr = rq->curr;
-		if (!is_idle_task(curr)) {
-			update_rq_clock(rq);
-			delta = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
-
-			/*
-			 * Make sure the next tick runs within a reasonable
-			 * amount of time.
-			 */
-			WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 3);
-			curr->sched_class->task_tick(rq, curr, 0);
-		}
-		rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
-	}
+	if (idle_cpu(cpu) || !tick_nohz_tick_stopped_cpu(cpu))
+		goto out_requeue;
 
+	rq_lock_irq(rq, &rf);
+	curr = rq->curr;
+	if (is_idle_task(curr))
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	update_rq_clock(rq);
+	delta = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
+
+	/*
+	 * Make sure the next tick runs within a reasonable
+	 * amount of time.
+	 */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 3);
+	curr->sched_class->task_tick(rq, curr, 0);
+
+out_unlock:
+	rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
+
+out_requeue:
 	/*
 	 * Run the remote tick once per second (1Hz). This arbitrary
 	 * frequency is large enough to avoid overload but short enough