linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V3 4/6] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers

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: <70837b44-4d21-9d70-d13b-2b6168fd02e3@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:52:42 +0200
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 4/6] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers


Back from EOSS...

On 6/23/23 18:47, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 08/06/23 17:58, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> @@ -2033,9 +2147,20 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq)
>>  	struct task_struct *p;
>>  
>>  	p = pick_task_dl(rq);
>> -	if (p)
>> +	if (!p)
>> +		return p;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * XXX: re-check !dl_server, changed from v2 because of
>> +	 * pick_next_task_dl change
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!dl_server(&p->dl))
>>  		set_next_task_dl(rq, p, true);
>>
> 
> Should this be
> 
>        if (!p->server)
> 
> instead? AFAICT dl_server(&p->dl) can never be true since there's no
> pi_se-like link to the server via the dl_se, only via the task_struct, and
> the server pick cannot return the server itself (as it's a pure sched_entity).

makes sense... I will check that in the v4.

> 
>> +	/* XXX not quite right */
>> +	if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
>> +		start_hrtick_dl(rq, &p->dl);
>> +
> 
> IIUC that got hauled out of set_next_task_dl() to cover the case where we
> pick the server (+ the server pick) and want to more thoroughly enforce the
> server's bandwidth. If so, what's the issue with starting the hrtick here?

I think that the commend was added more as a check if it is correct... it seems it is.

Thanks Vale!
-- Daniel

> 
>>  	return p;
>>  }
>>  
>