linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] sched/fair: Hoist idle_stamp up from idle

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: <9ad62a6f-0269-a5d9-9757-ba5419f9cc1d@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:07:58 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
        daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
        matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com,
        riel@...hat.com, jbacik@...com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, quentin.perret@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] sched/fair: Hoist idle_stamp up from
 idle_balance

Hi Steve,

On 09/11/2018 12:50, Steve Sistare wrote:
> Move the update of idle_stamp from idle_balance to the call site in
> pick_next_task_fair, to prepare for a future patch that adds work to
> pick_next_task_fair which must be included in the idle_stamp interval.
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 9031d39..da368ed 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3725,6 +3725,8 @@ static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
>  	rq->misfit_task_load = task_h_load(p);
>  }
>  
> +#define IF_SMP(statement)	statement
> +

I'm not too hot on those IF_SMP() macros. Since you're not introducing
any other user for them, what about an inline function for rq->idle_stamp
setting ? When it's mapped to an empty statement (!CONFIG_SMP) GCC is
smart enough to remove the rq_clock() that would be passed to it on
CONFIG_SMP:

----->8-----

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index c11adf3..34d9864 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3725,7 +3725,10 @@ static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
        rq->misfit_task_load = task_h_load(p);
 }
 
-#define IF_SMP(statement)      statement
+static inline void set_rq_idle_stamp(struct rq *rq, u64 value)
+{
+       rq->idle_stamp = value;
+}
 
 static void overload_clear(struct rq *rq)
 {
@@ -3772,7 +3775,7 @@ static inline int idle_balance(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
        return 0;
 }
 
-#define IF_SMP(statement)      /* empty */
+static inline void set_rq_idle_stamp(struct rq *rq, u64 value) {}
 
 static inline void overload_clear(struct rq *rq) {}
 static inline void overload_set(struct rq *rq) {}
@@ -6773,12 +6776,12 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
         * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
         * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
         */
-       IF_SMP(rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);)
+       set_rq_idle_stamp(rq, rq_clock(rq));
 
        new_tasks = idle_balance(rq, rf);
 
        if (new_tasks)
-               IF_SMP(rq->idle_stamp = 0;)
+               set_rq_idle_stamp(rq, 0);
 
        /*
         * Because idle_balance() releases (and re-acquires) rq->lock, it is