linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock

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: <20200414113639.GS20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:36:39 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     vpillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        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, 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>, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:59:53PM +0000, vpillai wrote:
> @@ -6400,8 +6464,15 @@ int sched_cpu_activate(unsigned int cpu)
>  	/*
>  	 * When going up, increment the number of cores with SMT present.
>  	 */
> -	if (cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) == 2)
> +	if (cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) == 2) {
>  		static_branch_inc_cpuslocked(&sched_smt_present);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> +		if (static_branch_unlikely(&__sched_core_enabled)) {
> +			rq->core_enabled = true;
> +		}
> +#endif
> +	}
> +
>  #endif
>  	set_cpu_active(cpu, true);
>  
> @@ -6447,8 +6518,16 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cpu)
>  	/*
>  	 * When going down, decrement the number of cores with SMT present.
>  	 */
> -	if (cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) == 2)
> +	if (cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) == 2) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> +		struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +		if (static_branch_unlikely(&__sched_core_enabled)) {
> +			rq->core_enabled = false;
> +		}
> +#endif
>  		static_branch_dec_cpuslocked(&sched_smt_present);
> +
> +	}
>  #endif
>  
>  	if (!sched_smp_initialized)

Aside from the fact that it's probably much saner to write this as:

	rq->core_enabled = static_key_enabled(&__sched_core_enabled);

I'm fairly sure I didn't write this part. And while I do somewhat see
the point of disabling core scheduling for a core that has only a single
thread on, I wonder why we care.

The thing is, this directly leads to the utter horror-show that is patch
6.

It should be perfectly possible to core schedule a core with only a
single thread on. It might be a tad silly to do, but it beats the heck
out of the trainwreck created here.

So how did this happen?