| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <16161eea-1e43-bf59-8c36-971e066ae634@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:10:04 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched/cpuset: Keep track of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
in cpusets
On 3/15/23 14:01, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 3/15/23 13:14, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> On 15/03/23 11:46, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 3/15/23 08:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>> Qais reported that iterating over all tasks when rebuilding root
>>>> domains
>>>> for finding out which ones are DEADLINE and need their bandwidth
>>>> correctly restored on such root domains can be a costly operation (10+
>>>> ms delays on suspend-resume).
>>>>
>>>> To fix the problem keep track of the number of DEADLINE tasks
>>>> belonging
>>>> to each cpuset and then use this information (followup patch) to only
>>>> perform the above iteration if DEADLINE tasks are actually present in
>>>> the cpuset for which a corresponding root domain is being rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++++
>>>> kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 4 ++++
>>>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
>>>> index 355f796c5f07..0348dba5680e 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
>>>> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ extern void cpuset_init_smp(void);
>>>> extern void cpuset_force_rebuild(void);
>>>> extern void cpuset_update_active_cpus(void);
>>>> extern void cpuset_wait_for_hotplug(void);
>>>> +extern void inc_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *task);
>>>> +extern void dec_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *task);
>>>> extern void cpuset_lock(void);
>>>> extern void cpuset_unlock(void);
>>>> extern void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, struct
>>>> cpumask *mask);
>>>> @@ -196,6 +198,8 @@ static inline void cpuset_update_active_cpus(void)
>>>> static inline void cpuset_wait_for_hotplug(void) { }
>>>> +static inline void inc_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *task) { }
>>>> +static inline void dec_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *task) { }
>>>> static inline void cpuset_lock(void) { }
>>>> static inline void cpuset_unlock(void) { }
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>>>> index c099cf3fa02d..357925e1e4af 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>>>> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/file.h>
>>>> #include <linux/fs_parser.h>
>>>> #include <linux/sched/cputime.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/sched/deadline.h>
>>>> #include <linux/psi.h>
>>>> #include <net/sock.h>
>>>> @@ -6673,6 +6674,9 @@ void cgroup_exit(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>> list_add_tail(&tsk->cg_list, &cset->dying_tasks);
>>>> cset->nr_tasks--;
>>>> + if (dl_task(tsk))
>>>> + dec_dl_tasks_cs(tsk);
>>>> +
>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(cgroup_task_frozen(tsk));
>>>> if (unlikely(!(tsk->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
>>>> test_bit(CGRP_FREEZE, &task_dfl_cgroup(tsk)->flags)))
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>> index 8d82d66d432b..57bc60112618 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>> @@ -193,6 +193,12 @@ struct cpuset {
>>>> int use_parent_ecpus;
>>>> int child_ecpus_count;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * number of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks attached to this cpuset, so
>>>> that we
>>>> + * know when to rebuild associated root domain bandwidth
>>>> information.
>>>> + */
>>>> + int nr_deadline_tasks;
>>>> +
>>>> /* Invalid partition error code, not lock protected */
>>>> enum prs_errcode prs_err;
>>>> @@ -245,6 +251,20 @@ static inline struct cpuset *parent_cs(struct
>>>> cpuset *cs)
>>>> return css_cs(cs->css.parent);
>>>> }
>>>> +void inc_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *p)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(p);
>>>> +
>>>> + cs->nr_deadline_tasks++;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void dec_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *p)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(p);
>>>> +
>>>> + cs->nr_deadline_tasks--;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /* bits in struct cpuset flags field */
>>>> typedef enum {
>>>> CS_ONLINE,
>>>> @@ -2472,6 +2492,11 @@ static int cpuset_can_attach(struct
>>>> cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>>> ret = security_task_setscheduler(task);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (dl_task(task)) {
>>>> + cs->nr_deadline_tasks++;
>>>> + cpuset_attach_old_cs->nr_deadline_tasks--;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>> Any one of the tasks in the cpuset can cause the test to fail and
>>> abort the
>>> attachment. I would suggest that you keep a deadline task transfer
>>> count in
>>> the loop and then update cs and cpouset_attach_old_cs only after all
>>> the
>>> tasks have been iterated successfully.
>> Right, Dietmar I think commented pointing out something along these
>> lines. Think though we already have this problem with current
>> task_can_attach -> dl_cpu_busy which reserves bandwidth for each tasks
>> in the destination cs. Will need to look into that. Do you know which
>> sort of operation would move multiple tasks at once?
>
> Actually, what I said previously may not be enough. There can be
> multiple controllers attached to a cgroup. If any of thier
> can_attach() calls fails, the whole transaction is aborted and
> cancel_attach() will be called. My new suggestion is to add a new
> deadline task transfer count into the cpuset structure and store the
> information there temporarily. If cpuset_attach() is called, it means
> all the can_attach calls succeed. You can then update the dl task
> count accordingly and clear the temporary transfer count.
>
> I guess you may have to do something similar with dl_cpu_busy().
>
> My 2 cents.
Alternatively, you can do the nr_deadline_tasks update in
cpuset_attach(). However, there is an optimization to skip the task
iteration if the cpu and memory list haven't changed. You will have to
skip that optimization if there are DL tasks in the cpuset.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists