linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

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, 14 Oct 2019 17:57:25 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.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 v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 08:44:32AM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:55 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't think we need do the normalization afterwrads and it appears
> > we are on the same page regarding core wide vruntime.

Should be "we are not on the same page..."

[...]
> > The weird thing about my patch is, the min_vruntime is often increased,
> > it doesn't point to the smallest value as in a traditional cfs_rq. This
> > probabaly can be changed to follow the tradition, I don't quite remember
> > why I did this, will need to check this some time later.
> 
> Yeah, I noticed this. In my patch, I had already accounted for this and changed
> to min() instead of max() which is more logical that min_vruntime should be the
> minimum of both the run queue.

I now remembered why I used max().

Assume rq1 and rq2's min_vruntime are both at 2000 and the core wide
min_vruntime is also 2000. Also assume both runqueues are empty at the
moment. Then task t1 is queued to rq1 and runs for a long time while rq2
keeps empty. rq1's min_vruntime will be incremented all the time while
the core wide min_vruntime stays at 2000 if min() is used. Then when
another task gets queued to rq2, it will get really large unfair boost
by using a much smaller min_vruntime as its base.

To fix this, either max() is used as is done in my patch, or adjust
rq2's min_vruntime to be the same as rq1's on each
update_core_cfs_min_vruntime() when rq2 is found empty and then use
min() to get the core wide min_vruntime. Looks not worth the trouble to
use min().