linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Warn on long periods of pending need

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: <CABk29Nu8iYDzY+GHa+z7oJyGF_0JKdF9+-zBbiL7C2hgSfHqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:17:37 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Warn on long periods of pending need_resched

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:31 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > +static inline u64 resched_latency_check(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +     int latency_warn_ms = READ_ONCE(sysctl_resched_latency_warn_ms);
> > +     bool warn_only_once = (latency_warn_ms == RESCHED_DEFAULT_WARN_LATENCY_MS);
> > +     u64 need_resched_latency, now = rq_clock(rq);
> > +     static bool warned_once;
> > +
> > +     if (warn_only_once && warned_once)
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     if (!need_resched() || latency_warn_ms < 2)
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     /* Disable this warning for the first few mins after boot */
> > +     if (now < RESCHED_BOOT_QUIET_SEC * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     if (!rq->last_seen_need_resched_ns) {
> > +             rq->last_seen_need_resched_ns = now;
> > +             rq->ticks_without_resched = 0;
> > +             return 0;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     rq->ticks_without_resched++;
>
> So AFAICS this will only really do something useful on full-nohz
> kernels with sufficiently long scheduler ticks, right?

Not quite sure what you mean; it is actually the inverse? Since we
rely on the tick to detect the resched latency, on nohz-full we won't
have detection on cpus running a single thread. The ideal scenario is
!nohz-full and tick interval << warn_ms.

> On other kernels the scheduler tick interrupt, when it returns to
> user-space, will trigger a reschedule if it sees a need_resched.

True for the case where we return to userspace, but we could instead
be executing in a non-preemptible region of the kernel. This is where
we've seen/fixed kernel bugs.

Best,
Josh