linux-kernel - [tip:sched/core] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sat, 3 Nov 2018 17:13:38 -0700
From:   tip-bot for Valentin Schneider <tipbot@...or.com>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on
 newidle balance

Commit-ID:  3f130a37c442d5c4d66531b240ebe9abfef426b5
Gitweb:     https://git.kernel.org/tip/3f130a37c442d5c4d66531b240ebe9abfef426b5
Author:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:12:07 +0100
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:59:23 +0100

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.

This is a similar approach to what is done in commit 58b26c4c0257
("sched: Increment cache_nice_tries only on periodic lb"), where we
disregard newidle balance and rely on periodic balance for more stable
results.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dietmar.Eggemann@....com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: patrick.bellasi@....com
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1537974727-30788-2-git-send-email-valentin.schneider@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 4e298931a715..a17ca4254427 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8876,13 +8876,22 @@ out_all_pinned:
 	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)
 		sd->balance_interval *= 2;
-
-	ld_moved = 0;
 out:
 	return ld_moved;
 }