linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not replace recent_used

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201211094540.GV3371@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:45:40 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not replace recent_used_cpu with the
 new target

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 05:34:43PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:02:28 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:25:42PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Tue,  8 Dec 2020 15:35:00 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> > @@ -6277,17 +6277,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
> >> >  
> >> >  	/* Check a recently used CPU as a potential idle candidate: */
> >> >  	recent_used_cpu = p->recent_used_cpu;
> >> > +	p->recent_used_cpu = prev;
> >> >  	if (recent_used_cpu != prev &&
> >> >  	    recent_used_cpu != target &&
> >> >  	    cpus_share_cache(recent_used_cpu, target) &&
> >> >  	    (available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu)) &&
> >> >  	    cpumask_test_cpu(p->recent_used_cpu, p->cpus_ptr) &&
> >> 
> >> Typo? Fix it in spin if so.
> >> 
> >
> >What typo?
> 
> After your change it is prev that we check against p->cpus_ptr instead of
> the recent CPU. Wonder the point to do such a check for returning the
> recent one.

Ah... yes, this is indeed wrong. It wouldn't affect Vincent's case
that showed a problem with a hackbench configuration (which I'm still
disappointed about as it's a trade-off depending on machine and workload)
but it allows a task to run on the wrong cpu if sched_setscheduler()
was called between wakeup events.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs