linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:36:22 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 04:18:16PM +0000, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> +/*
> + * l(a,b)
> + * le(a,b) := !l(b,a)
> + * g(a,b)  := l(b,a)
> + * ge(a,b) := !l(a,b)
> + */
> +
> +/* real prio, less is less */
> +static inline bool __prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool core_cmp)
> +{
> +	u64 vruntime;
> +
> +	int pa = __task_prio(a), pb = __task_prio(b);
> +
> +	if (-pa < -pb)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (-pb < -pa)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (pa == -1) /* dl_prio() doesn't work because of stop_class above */
> +		return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline);
> +
> +	vruntime = b->se.vruntime;
> +	if (core_cmp) {
> +		vruntime -= task_cfs_rq(b)->min_vruntime;
> +		vruntime += task_cfs_rq(a)->min_vruntime;
> +	}
> +	if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE) /* fair */
> +		return !((s64)(a->se.vruntime - vruntime) <= 0);
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

This unfortunately still doesn't work.

Consider the following task layout on two sibling CPUs(cpu0 and cpu1):

    rq0.cfs_rq    rq1.cfs_rq
        |             |
     se_bash        se_hog

se_hog is the sched_entity for a cpu intensive task and se_bash is the
sched_entity for bash.

There are two problems:
1 SCHED_DEBIT
when user execute some commands through bash, say ls, bash will fork.
The newly forked ls' vruntime is set in the future due to SCHED_DEBIT.
This made 'ls' lose in __prio_less() when compared with hog, whose
vruntime may very likely be the same as its cfs_rq's min_vruntime.

This is OK since we do not want forked process to starve already running
ones. The problem is, since hog keeps running, its vruntime will always
sync with its cfs_rq's min_vruntime. OTOH, 'ls' can not run, its
cfs_rq's min_vruntime doesn't proceed, making 'ls' always lose to hog.

2 who schedules, who wins
so I disabled SCHED_DEBIT, for testing's purpose. When cpu0 schedules,
ls could win where both sched_entity's vruntime is the same as their
cfs_rqs' min_vruntime. So does hog: when cpu1 schedules, hog can preempt
ls in the same way. The end result is, interactive task can lose to cpu
intensive task and ls can feel "dead".

I haven't figured out a way to solve this yet. A core wide cfs_rq's
min_vruntime can probably solve this. Your suggestions are appreciated.