[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a7fe6ae-3587-4a55-1cf2-c4fe568a5ffa@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:07:21 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] sched/debug: Make sd->flags sysctl read-only
On 11.03.20 19:15, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Writing to the sysctl of a sched_domain->flags directly updates the value of
> the field, and goes nowhere near update_top_cache_domain(). This means that
> the cached domain pointers can end up containing stale data (e.g. the
> domain pointed to doesn't have the relevant flag set anymore).
>
> Explicit domain walks that check for flags will be affected by
> the write, but this won't be in sync with the cached pointers which will
> still point to the domains that were cached at the last sched_domain
> build.
>
> In other words, writing to this interface is playing a dangerous game. It
> could be made to trigger an update of the cached sched_domain pointers when
> written to, but this does not seem to be worth the trouble. Make it
> read-only.
As long as I don't change SD flags for which cached SD pointers exist
(SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES, SD_NUMA, SD_ASYM_PACKING or
SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) the write-able interface still could make some sense.
E.g. by enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE on the fly, I can force !want_affine
wakees into slow path.
The question is, do people use the writable flags interface to tweak
select_task_rq_fair() behavior in this regard?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists