linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] drm: commit

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: <20201008091017.GD438822@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:10:17 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] drm: commit_work scheduling

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 10/07/20 08:57, Rob Clark wrote:
> > Yeah, I think we will end up making some use of uclamp.. there is
> > someone else working on that angle
> > 
> > But without it, this is a case that exposes legit prioritization
> > problems with commit_work which we should fix ;-)
> 
> I wasn't suggesting this as an alternative to fixing the other problem. But it
> seemed you had a different problem here that I thought I could help with :-)
> 
> I did give my opinion about how to handle that priority issue. If the 2 threads
> are kernel threads and by design they need relative priorities IMO the kernel
> need to be taught to set this relative priority. It seemed the vblank worker
> could run as SCHED_DEADLINE. If this works, then the priority problem for
> commit_work disappears as SCHED_DEADLINE will preempt RT. If commit_work uses
> sched_set_fifo(), its priority will be 50, hence your SF threads can no longer
> preempt it. And you can manage the SF threads to be any value you want relative
> to 50 anyway without having to manage commit_work itself.
> 
> I'm not sure if you have problems with RT tasks preempting important CFS
> tasks. My brain registered two conflicting statements.

I think the problem is there's two modes cros runs in: Normal cros mode,
which mostly works like a linux desktop. CFS commit work seems fine.

Other mode is android emulation, where we have the surface flinger thread
running at SCHED_FIFO. I think Rob's plan is to runtime switch priorities
to match each use case.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch