linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] sched: CGroup tagging interface for core scheduling

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: <YBv93iXqI8UTw9tD@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:59:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
        graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
        pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
        benbjiang@...cent.com,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] sched: CGroup tagging interface for core
 scheduling

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 05:51:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> I'm slowly starting to go through this...
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:17:01PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +static bool sched_core_empty(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +	return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rq->core_tree);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct task_struct *sched_core_first(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +
> > +	task = container_of(rb_first(&rq->core_tree), struct task_struct, core_node);
> > +	return task;
> > +}
> 
> AFAICT you can do with:
> 
> static struct task_struct *sched_core_any(struct rq *rq)
> {
> 	return rb_entry(rq->core_tree.rb_node, struct task_struct, code_node);
> }
> 
> > +static void sched_core_flush(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +
> > +	while (!sched_core_empty(rq)) {
> > +		task = sched_core_first(rq);
> > +		rb_erase(&task->core_node, &rq->core_tree);
> > +		RB_CLEAR_NODE(&task->core_node);
> > +	}
> > +	rq->core->core_task_seq++;
> > +}
> 
> However,
> 
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(enabled == rq->core_enabled);
> > +
> > +		if (!enabled || (enabled && cpumask_weight(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) >= 2)) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * All active and migrating tasks will have already
> > +			 * been removed from core queue when we clear the
> > +			 * cgroup tags. However, dying tasks could still be
> > +			 * left in core queue. Flush them here.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (!enabled)
> > +				sched_core_flush(cpu);
> > +
> > +			rq->core_enabled = enabled;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> I'm not sure I understand. Is the problem that we're still schedulable
> during do_exit() after cgroup_exit() ? It could be argued that when we
> leave the cgroup there, we should definitely leave the tag group too.

That is, did you forget to implement cpu_cgroup_exit()?