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  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]
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 09:12:37 +0100
From:   Tvrtko Ursulin <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
        Tvrtko Ursulin <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Juri Lelli <>,
        Vincent Guittot <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] sched: Add nice value change notifier

On 01/10/2021 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:32:16AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 01/10/2021 10:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> On 30/09/2021 19:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 06:15:47PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>    void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>        bool queued, running;
>>>>> -    int old_prio;
>>>>> +    int old_prio, ret;
>>>>>        struct rq_flags rf;
>>>>>        struct rq *rq;
>>>>> @@ -6913,6 +6945,9 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p,
>>>>> long nice)
>>>>>         */
>>>>>        p->sched_class->prio_changed(rq, p, old_prio);
>>>>> +    ret = atomic_notifier_call_chain(&user_nice_notifier_list,
>>>>> nice, p);
>>>>> +    WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != NOTIFY_DONE);
>>>>> +
>>>>>    out_unlock:
>>>>>        task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
>>>>>    }
>>>> No, we're not going to call out to exported, and potentially unbounded,
>>>> functions under scheduler locks.
>>> Agreed, that's another good point why it is even more hairy, as I have
>>> generally alluded in the cover letter.
>>> Do you have any immediate thoughts on possible alternatives?
>>> Like for instance if I did a queue_work from set_user_nice and then ran
>>> a notifier chain async from a worker? I haven't looked at yet what
>>> repercussion would that have in terms of having to cancel the pending
>>> workers when tasks exit. I can try and prototype that and see how it
>>> would look.
>> Hm or I simply move calling the notifier chain to after task_rq_unlock? That
>> would leave it run under the tasklist lock so probably still quite bad.
> Hmm? That's for normalize_rt_tasks() only, right? Just don't have it
> call the notifier in that special case (that's a magic sysrq thing
> anyway).

You mean my talk about tasklist_lock? No, it is also on the syscall part 
I am interested in as well. Call chain looks like this:

         -> my notifier from this RFC [1]
         -> I can move the notifier here for _some_ improvement [2]

So this RFC had the notifier call chain at [1], which I understood was 
the thing you initially pointed was horrible, being under a scheduler lock.

I can trivially move it to [2] but that still leaves it under the 
tasklist lock. I don't have a good feel how much better that would be. 
If not good enough then I will look for a smarter solution with less 
opportunity for global impact.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists