linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] sched/vtime: Handle nice updates under vtime

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: <20191115101831.GW5671@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:18:31 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] sched/vtime: Handle nice updates under vtime

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:16:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:08:01AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The cputime niceness is determined while checking the target's nice value
> > at cputime accounting time. Under vtime this happens on context switches,
> > user exit and guest exit. But nice value updates while the target is
> > running are not taken into account.
> > 
> > So if a task runs tickless for 10 seconds in userspace but it has been
> > reniced after 5 seconds from -1 (not nice) to 1 (nice), on user exit
> > vtime will account the whole 10 seconds as CPUTIME_NICE because it only
> > sees the latest nice value at accounting time which is 1 here. Yet it's
> > wrong, 5 seconds should be accounted as CPUTIME_USER and 5 seconds as
> > CPUTIME_NICE.
> > 
> > In order to solve this, we now cover nice updates withing three cases:
> > 
> > * If the nice updater is the current task, although we are in kernel
> >   mode there can be pending user or guest time in the cache to flush
> >   under the prior nice state. Account these if any. Also toggle the
> >   vtime nice flag for further user/guest cputime accounting.
> > 
> > * If the target runs on a different CPU, we interrupt it with an IPI to
> >   update the vtime state in place. If the task is running in user or
> >   guest, the pending cputime is accounted under the prior nice state.
> >   Then the vtime nice flag is toggled for further user/guest cputime
> >   accounting.
> 
> But but but, I thought the idea was to _never_ send interrupts to
> NOHZ_FULL cpus ?!?

That is, isn't the cure worse than the problem? I mean, who bloody cares
about silly accounting crud more than not getting interrupts on their
NOHZ_FULL cpus.