linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] sched/fair: Add SHARED_RUNQ sched feature and skeleton calls

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:45:47 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, aaron.lu@...el.com,
        clm@...a.com, tj@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] sched/fair: Add SHARED_RUNQ sched feature and
 skeleton calls

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:03:39PM -0500, David Vernet wrote:

> @@ -11843,6 +11871,9 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  	if (!cpu_active(this_cpu))
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ) && shared_runq_pick_next_task(this_rq, rf))
> +		return -1;
> +

Next patch implements shared_runq_pick_next_task() with the same return
values as newidle_balance(), which would seem to suggest the following
instead:

	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) {
		pulled_task = shared_runq_pick_next_task(this_rq, rf);
		if (pulled_task)
			return pulled_task;
	}

Additionally, I think we wants something like:

	sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) {
		... /* see above */

		sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
		sd = sd->parent;
	}

to ensure we skip <=LLC domains, since those have already been covered
by this shiny new thing, no?