linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/isolation: Add cpu_is

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: <ZCLRwgAHc7/TAOiN@lothringen>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:38:42 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/isolation: Add cpu_is_isolated() API

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 07:24:54AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:35:35PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > > On Fri 17-03-23 15:35:05, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 03:33:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 02:44:47PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Provide this new API to check if a CPU has been isolated either through
> > > > > > isolcpus= or nohz_full= kernel parameter.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It aims at avoiding kernel load deemed to be safely spared on CPUs
> > > > > > running sensitive workload that can't bear any disturbance, such as
> > > > > > pcp cache draining.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This makes no sense to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > HK_TYPE_DOMAIN is set when isolcpus=domain is configured.
> > > > > HK_TYPE_TICK is set when nohz_full= is configured.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The use-cases i am aware of use either:
> > > > > 
> > > > > isolcpus=managed_irq,... nohz_full=
> > > > > OR
> > > > > isolcpus=domain,managed_irq,... nohz_full=
> > > > > 
> > > > > So what is the point of this function again?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps it made sense along with, but now does not make sense
> > > > > anymore:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/isolation: Merge individual nohz_full features into a common housekeeping flag
> > > > > 
> > > > > The individual isolation features turned on by nohz_full were initially
> > > > > split in order for each of them to be tunable through cpusets. However
> > > > > plans have changed in favour of an interface (be it cpusets or sysctl)
> > > > > grouping all these features to be turned on/off altogether. Then should
> > > > > the need ever arise, the interface can still be expanded to handle the
> > > > > individual isolation features.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But Michal can just use housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) and
> > > > > the convertion of nohz_full features into a common housekeeping flag
> > > > > can convert that to something else later?
> > > > 
> > > > Actually introducing cpu_is_isolated() seems fine, but it can call
> > > > housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) AFAICS.
> > >  
> > > This is not really my area. Frederic, could you have a look please?
> > 
> > The point is to have a function that tells if either nohz_full= or
> > isolcpus=[domain] has been passed for the given CPU.
> > 
> > Because I assumed that both would be interested in avoiding that flush
> > noise, wouldn't it be the case?
> 
> Yes, that is the case. But as a note: for the two main types of
> configuration performed (one uses isolcpus=[domain] and the other
> cgroups, for isolating processes) nohz_full= is always set.
> 
> So just testing for nohz_full= would be sufficient (which perhaps would
> make the code simpler).

Ok then all is needed is to test tick_nohz_full_cpu(target), right?