linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Keep current cpus list if cpus affinity was explicitly set

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: <YuL1NijxSEv2xadk@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 10:44:38 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Keep current cpus list if cpus
 affinity was explicitly set

Hello,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/28/22 15:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:57:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > There can be a counter argument that if a user found out that there is not
> > > enough cpus in a cpuset to meet its performance target, one can always
> > > increase the number of cpus in the cpuset. Generalizing this behavior to all
> > > the tasks irrespective if they have explicitly set cpus affinity before will
> > > disallow this use case.
> > This is nasty.
> 
> That is a nasty example, I know. There may be users depending on the
> existing behavior even if they don't know it. So I am a bit hesitant to
> change the default behavior like that. On the other hand, tasks that have
> explicitly set its cpu affinity certainly don't want to have unexpected
> change to that.

Yeah, I hear you. I'm on the same page.

> > The real solution here is separating out what user requested
> > and the mask that cpuset (or cpu hotplug) needs to apply on top. ie.
> > remember what the user requested in a separate cpumask and compute the
> > intersection into p->cpus_maks whenever something changes and apply
> > fallbacks on that final mask. Multiple parties updating the same variable is
> > never gonna lead to anything consistent and we're patching up for whatever
> > the immediate use case seems to need at the moment. That said, I'm not
> > necessarily against patching it up but if you're interested in delving into
> > it deeper, that'd be great.
> 
> I believe the current code is already restricting what cpu affinity that a
> user can request by limiting to those allowed by the current cpuset. Hotplug
> is another issue that may need to be addressed. I will update my patch to
> make it handle hotplug in a more graceful way.

So, the patch you proposed is making the code remember one special aspect of
user requested configuration - whether it configured it or not, and trying
to preserve that particular state as cpuset state changes. It addresses the
immediate problem but it is a very partial approach. Let's say a task wanna
be affined to one logical thread of each core and set its mask to 0x5555.
Now, let's say cpuset got enabled and enforced 0xff and affined the task to
0xff. After a while, the cgroup got more cpus allocated and its cpuset now
has 0xfff. Ideally, what should happen is the task now having the effective
mask of 0x555. In practice, tho, it either would get 0xf55 or 0x55 depending
on which way we decide to misbehave.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun