linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix broken bandwidth control with nohz

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:23:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix broken bandwidth control
 with nohz_full

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:44:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:56:07 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > echo $$ > test/cgroup.procs
> > > taskset -c 1 bash -c "while true; do let i++; done"  --> will be throttled  
> > 
> > Ofcourse.. I'm arguing that bandiwdth control and NOHZ_FULL are somewhat
> > mutually exclusive, use-case wise. So I really don't get why you'd want
> > them both.
> 
> Is it?
> 
> One use case I can see for having both is for having a deadline task that
> needs to get something done in a tight deadline. NOHZ_FULL means "do not
> interrupt this task when it is the top priority task on the CPU and is
> running in user space".

This is absolute batshit.. It means no such thing. We'll happily wake
another task to this CPU and re-enable the tick any instant.

Worse; the use-case at hand pertains to cfs bandwidth control, which
pretty much guarantees there *will* be an interrupt.

> Why is it mutually exclusive to have a deadline task that does not want to
> be interrupted by timer interrupts?

This has absolutely nothing to do with deadline tasks, nada, noppes.

> Just because the biggest pushers of NOHZ_FULL is for those that are running
> RT tasks completely in user space and event want to fault if it ever goes
> into the kernel, doesn't mean that's the only use case.

Because there's costs associated with the whole thing. system entry/exit
get far more expensive. It just doesn't make much sense to use NOHZ_FULL
if you're not absoultely limiting system entry.

> Chengming brought up VMs. That's a case to want to control the bandwidth,
> but also not interrupt them with timer interrupts when they are running as
> the top priority task on a CPU.

It's CFS, there is nothing top priority about that.