linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 09/13] sched/fair: core wide vruntime comparison

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:24:30 -0400
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        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>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <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 Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/13] sched/fair: core wide vruntime comparison

> > > You forgot the time complexity analysis.
> >
> > This is a mistake and the adjust should be needed only once when core
> > scheduling is initially enabled. It is an initialization thing and there
> > is no reason to do it in every invocation of coresched_adjust_vruntime().
>
> Correction...
> I meant there is no need to call coresched_adjust_vruntime() in every
> invocation of update_core_cfs_rq_min_vruntime().

Due to the checks in place, update_core_cfs_rq_min_vruntime should
not be calling coresched_adjust_vruntime more than once between a
coresched enable/disable. Once the min_vruntime is adjusted, we depend
only on rq->core and the other sibling's min_vruntime will not grow
until coresched disable.

I did some micro benchmark tests today to verify this and observed
that coresched_adjust_vruntime called at most once between a coresched
enable/disable.

Thanks,
Vineeth