linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

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]

Message-ID: <20200415101122.GA14447@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:11:22 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default
 boost value

Hi Qais,

On Friday 03 Apr 2020 at 13:30:19 (+0100), Qais Yousef wrote:
<snip>
> +	/*
> +	 * The new value will be applied to all RT tasks the next time they
> +	 * wakeup, assuming the task is using the system default and not a user
> +	 * specified value. In the latter we shall leave the value as the user
> +	 * requested.
> +	 */
>  	if (sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min > sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_max ||
>  	    sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_max > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) {
>  		result = -EINVAL;
>  		goto undo;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) {
> +		result = -EINVAL;
> +		goto undo;
> +	}

Hmm, checking:

	if (sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min > sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min)

would probably make sense too, but then that would make writing in
sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min cumbersome for sysadmins as they'd need to
lower the rt default first. Is that the reason for checking against
SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE? That might deserve a comment or something.

<snip>
> @@ -1241,9 +1293,13 @@ static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p)
>  	for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
>  		unsigned int clamp_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
>  
> -		/* By default, RT tasks always get 100% boost */
> +		/*
> +		 * By default, RT tasks always get 100% boost, which the admins
> +		 * are allowed to change via
> +		 * sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min knob.
> +		 */
>  		if (unlikely(rt_task(p) && clamp_id == UCLAMP_MIN))
> -			clamp_value = uclamp_none(UCLAMP_MAX);
> +			clamp_value = sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min;
>  
>  		uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[clamp_id], clamp_value, false);
>  	}

And that, as per 20200414161320.251897-1-qperret@...gle.com, should not
be there :)

Otherwise the patch pretty looks good to me!

Thanks,
Quentin