linux-kernel - [PATCH] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1537896922-8508-1-git-send-email-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:35:22 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@....com
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance

When load_balance() fails to move some load because of task affinity,
we end up increasing sd->balance_interval to delay the next periodic
balance in the hopes that next time we look, that annoying pinned
task(s) will be gone.

However, idle_balance() pays no attention to sd->balance_interval, yet
it will still lead to an increase in balance_interval in case of
pinned tasks.

If we're going through several newidle balances (e.g. we have a
periodic task), this can lead to a huge increase of the
balance_interval in a very small amount of time.

To prevent that, don't increase the balance interval when going
through a newidle balance.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6bd142d..620910d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8782,13 +8782,22 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
 	sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
 
 out_one_pinned:
+	ld_moved = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * idle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could repeatedly
+	 * reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval skyrocketting
+	 * in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval increase logic
+	 * to avoid that.
+	 */
+	if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
+		goto out;
+
 	/* tune up the balancing interval */
-	if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
-			sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
-			(sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
+	if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
+	     sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
+	    (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
 		sd->balance_interval *= 2;
-
-	ld_moved = 0;
 out:
 	return ld_moved;
 }
--
2.7.4