linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth

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: <CABk29Ntdztkv4jT87vFgTtC99d49iUu9CcHPruh9MxDazaAW7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:41:04 -0800
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth

> > +        */
> > +       if (local_unthrottle) {
> > +               rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
> > +               rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
>
> Should we add:
>                 if (cfs_rq_throttled(local_unthrottle))
>
> before calling into unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(local_unthrottle) to avoid a
> potential WARN?
>
> As for whether the local cfs_rq can be unthrottled now after rq lock is
> re-acquired, I suppose it can be. e.g. another user sets a new quota to
> this task group during the window of rq lock gets dropped in the above
> loop and re-acquired here IIUC.
>
> > +               unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(local_unthrottle);
> > +               rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
> > +       }
> > +
> >         return throttled;
> >  }

Yes, we should add that check due to the case you described with a
user concurrently configuring bandwidth. And as long as we're doing
that, we might as well make this unthrottle_cfs_rq() instead and snip
the comment. Peter, would you mind adding that delta?