linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cgroup: make per-cgroup pressure stall tracking configurable

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: <YJ64xHoogrowXTok@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 19:52:04 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        lizefan.x@...edance.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, bristot@...hat.com,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, macro@...am.me.uk,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        cgroups mailinglist <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cgroup: make per-cgroup pressure stall tracking
 configurable

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:54:47AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

> Correct, for this function CONFIG_CGROUPS=n and
> cgroup_disable=pressure are treated the same. True, from the code it's
> not very obvious. Do you have some refactoring in mind that would make
> it more explicit?

Does this make sense?

--- a/kernel/sched/psi.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/psi.c
@@ -744,24 +744,26 @@ static void psi_group_change(struct psi_
 
 static struct psi_group *iterate_groups(struct task_struct *task, void **iter)
 {
+	if (cgroup_psi_enabled()) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
-	struct cgroup *cgroup = NULL;
+		struct cgroup *cgroup = NULL;
 
-	if (!*iter)
-		cgroup = task->cgroups->dfl_cgrp;
-	else if (*iter == &psi_system)
-		return NULL;
-	else
-		cgroup = cgroup_parent(*iter);
+		if (!*iter)
+			cgroup = task->cgroups->dfl_cgrp;
+		else if (*iter == &psi_system)
+			return NULL;
+		else
+			cgroup = cgroup_parent(*iter);
 
-	if (cgroup && cgroup_parent(cgroup)) {
-		*iter = cgroup;
-		return cgroup_psi(cgroup);
-	}
-#else
-	if (*iter)
-		return NULL;
+		if (cgroup && cgroup_parent(cgroup)) {
+			*iter = cgroup;
+			return cgroup_psi(cgroup);
+		}
 #endif
+	} else {
+		if (*iter)
+			return NULL;
+	}
 	*iter = &psi_system;
 	return &psi_system;
 }