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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:32:16 +0000 From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>, Hank <han.lin@...iatek.com>, Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Traverse cpufreq policies to detect capacity inversion On 11/30/22 19:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 7c0dd57e562a..4bbbca85134b 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -8856,23 +8856,20 @@ static void update_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu) > > * * Thermal pressure will impact all cpus in this perf domain > > * equally. > > */ > > - if (sched_energy_enabled()) { > > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity)) { > > unsigned long inv_cap = capacity_orig - thermal_load_avg(rq); > > - struct perf_domain *pd = rcu_dereference(rq->rd->pd); > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy, __maybe_unused *policy_n; > > > > rq->cpu_capacity_inverted = 0; > > > > - SCHED_WARN_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held()); > > - > > - for (; pd; pd = pd->next) { > > - struct cpumask *pd_span = perf_domain_span(pd); > > + for_each_active_policy_safe(policy, policy_n) { > > 1. Is the "safe" part sufficient for protection against concurrent > deletion and freeing of list entries? cpufreq driver removal can do > that AFAICS. The freeing part is not safe probably. I need to research this more. Do you have issues against the exportation of this traversal in principle? Switching them to be RCU protected could be the best safe option, anything against that too? I might not end up needing that. I need to dig more. > 2. For a casual reader of this code it may not be clear why cpufreq > policies matter here. I'm looking for a way to traverse the list of capacities of the system and know their related CPUs. AFAICT this information already exists in the performance domains and cpufreq_policy. Performance domains are conditional to energy model and schedutil. So trying to switch to cpufreq_policy. Assuming this question wasn't a request to add a comment :-) Thanks! -- Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists