| 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: <CAJuCfpGxGjcE20THevY3pTCTX-EdhZDGtURr8XE6+ThHfoEzHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:41:30 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
brauner@...nel.org, chris@...isdown.name, hannes@...xchg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/psi: extract update_triggers side effect
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 3:14 AM Domenico Cerasuolo
<cerasuolodomenico@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not suggesting that update_triggers should be different, I agree that they should behave the same for both types of trigger.
> The problem is that if we extract the update_total information out of update_triggers, that information will be ignored by psi_avgs_work because avg_total is always updated in update_averages, only psi_poll_work would use it to copy the total to polling_total.
> If this is the only alternative to having `if (update_total && aggregator == PSI_POLL)` inside update_triggers, I'll add the argument to update_triggers, I'm just wondering if there could be another alternative.
I suggest you post the V2 with suggested changes and this approach and
it will be easier to decide whether this can be improved further.
Also, please do not top-post (read through
https://kernelnewbies.org/mailinglistguidelines for more hints).
Thanks,
Suren.
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:41 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:18 AM Domenico Cerasuolo
>> <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Suren, thanks for all the feedback! This makes sense, I only have one doubt, if we set update_total flag to window_update() and update_triggers(), that flag would be ignored when the caller is psi_avgs_work(), this would be happening in the next patch in the set.
>>
>> I don't see why the update_triggers part should be conceptually
>> different between RT and unprivileged triggers. Could you please
>> explain?
>>
>> > What do you think if I just remove this change from the patchset and then work on a solution after the iterations on the main change are completed? This was in fact just an attempt to clean up.
>> > I'll apply your suggested changes on the other patches, wait a bit for comments from someone else and then send V2.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:00 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:08 AM Domenico Cerasuolo
>> >> <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The update of rtpoll_total inside update_triggers can be moved out of
>> >> > the function since changed_states has the same information as the
>> >> > update_total flag used in the function. Besides the simplification of
>> >> > the function, with the next patch it would become an unwanted side
>> >> > effect needed only for PSI_POLL.
>> >>
>> >> (changed_states & group->rtpoll_states) and update_total flag are not
>> >> really equivalent. update_total flag depends on the difference between
>> >> group->polling_total[state] and group->total[PSI_POLL][state] while
>> >> changed_states depends on the difference between groupc->times and
>> >> groupc->times_prev. groupc->times_prev is updated every time
>> >> collect_percpu_times() is called and there are 3 places where that
>> >> happens: from psi_avgs_work(), from psi_poll_work() and from
>> >> psi_show(). group->polling_total[state] is updated only from
>> >> psi_poll_work(). Therefore the deltas between these values might not
>> >> always be in-sync.
>> >>
>> >> Consider the following sequence as an example:
>> >>
>> >> psi_poll_work()
>> >> ...
>> >> psi_avgs_work()/psi_show()
>> >> collect_percpu_times() // we detect a change in a monitored state
>> >> ...
>> >> psi_poll_work()
>> >> collect_percpu_times() // this time no change in monitored states
>> >> update_triggers() // group->polling_total[state] !=
>> >> group->total[PSI_POLL][state]
>> >>
>> >> In the last psi_poll_work() collect_percpu_times() recorded no change
>> >> in monitored states, so (changed_states & group->rtpoll_states) == 0,
>> >> however since the last time psi_poll_work() was called there was
>> >> actually a change in monitored states recorded by the first
>> >> collect_percpu_times(), therefore (group->polling_total[t->state] !=
>> >> total[t->state]) and we should update the totals. With your change we
>> >> will miss that update.
>> >>
>> >> I think you can easily fix that by introducing update_triggers as an
>> >> output parameter in window_update() like this:
>> >>
>> >> static u64 window_update(struct psi_window *win, u64 now, u64 value,
>> >> bool *update_triggers) {
>> >> *update_total = false;
>> >> ...
>> >> if (new_stall) {
>> >> *update_total = true;
>> >> ...
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> static void psi_rtpoll_work(struct psi_group *group) {
>> >> + bool update_triggers;
>> >> ...
>> >> - if (now >= group->rtpoll_next_update)
>> >> + if (now >= group->rtpoll_next_update) {
>> >> group->rtpoll_next_update = update_triggers(group,
>> >> now, &update_triggers);
>> >> + if (update_triggers)
>> >> + memcpy(group->rtpoll_total, group->total[PSI_POLL],
>> >> + sizeof(group->rtpoll_total));
>> >> + }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > kernel/sched/psi.c | 20 +++++---------------
>> >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/psi.c b/kernel/sched/psi.c
>> >> > index a3d0b5cf797a..476941c1cbea 100644
>> >> > --- a/kernel/sched/psi.c
>> >> > +++ b/kernel/sched/psi.c
>> >> > @@ -433,7 +433,6 @@ static u64 window_update(struct psi_window *win, u64 now, u64 value)
>> >> > static u64 update_triggers(struct psi_group *group, u64 now)
>> >> > {
>> >> > struct psi_trigger *t;
>> >> > - bool update_total = false;
>> >> > u64 *total = group->total[PSI_POLL];
>> >> >
>> >> > /*
>> >> > @@ -456,14 +455,6 @@ static u64 update_triggers(struct psi_group *group, u64 now)
>> >> > * events without dropping any).
>> >> > */
>> >> > if (new_stall) {
>> >> > - /*
>> >> > - * Multiple triggers might be looking at the same state,
>> >> > - * remember to update group->polling_total[] once we've
>> >> > - * been through all of them. Also remember to extend the
>> >> > - * polling time if we see new stall activity.
>> >> > - */
>> >> > - update_total = true;
>> >> > -
>> >> > /* Calculate growth since last update */
>> >> > growth = window_update(&t->win, now, total[t->state]);
>> >> > if (!t->pending_event) {
>> >> > @@ -484,11 +475,6 @@ static u64 update_triggers(struct psi_group *group, u64 now)
>> >> > /* Reset threshold breach flag once event got generated */
>> >> > t->pending_event = false;
>> >> > }
>> >> > -
>> >> > - if (update_total)
>> >> > - memcpy(group->rtpoll_total, total,
>> >> > - sizeof(group->rtpoll_total));
>> >> > -
>> >> > return now + group->rtpoll_min_period;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > @@ -686,8 +672,12 @@ static void psi_rtpoll_work(struct psi_group *group)
>> >> > goto out;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > - if (now >= group->rtpoll_next_update)
>> >> > + if (now >= group->rtpoll_next_update) {
>> >> > group->rtpoll_next_update = update_triggers(group, now);
>> >> > + if (changed_states & group->rtpoll_states)
>> >> > + memcpy(group->rtpoll_total, group->total[PSI_POLL],
>> >> > + sizeof(group->rtpoll_total));
>> >> > + }
>> >> >
>> >> > psi_schedule_rtpoll_work(group,
>> >> > nsecs_to_jiffies(group->rtpoll_next_update - now) + 1,
>> >> > --
>> >> > 2.34.1
>> >> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists