linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] resctrl: reassigning a running container's CTRL

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: <d3c06fa3-83a4-7ade-6b08-3a7259aa6c4b@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 09:48:56 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>
CC:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
        "Gaurang Upasani" <gupasani@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] resctrl: reassigning a running container's CTRL_MON group

Hi Peter,

On 11/1/2022 8:53 AM, Peter Newman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 4:23 PM Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Yes it looks like the task's rq_lock would provide the necessary
>> ordering. It's not feasible to ensure the IPI arrives before the target
>> task migrates away, but the task would need to obtain the same lock in
>> order to migrate off of its current CPU, so that alone would ensure the
>> next migration would observe the updates.
>>
>> The difficulty is this lock is private to sched/, so I'd have to propose
>> some API.

I thought that we could do something similar to cgroup_move_task(). Instead
of new API it seems that the custom is for subsystems to move their scheduler
related code to kernel/sched/. For example, a new
kernel/sched/resctrl.c that implements the task moving code that benefits
from the private sched/ APIs.

But ...

> Actually it looks like I can just use task_call_func() to lock down the
> task while we do our updates and decide if or where to send IPIs. That
> seems easy enough.

Indeed, this does look promising. Thanks for finding that.

If you do pursue something like this I assume that you have some
challenging environments in which to try it out? I am curious about the
user space visible impact of the additional locking on a task move when
the number of tasks being moved is high.

Reinette