linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server

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: <20231108125036.GD4779@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:50:36 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server

On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 01:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Should we rather not cap the runtime, something like so?
> 

Clearly I should've done the patch against a tree that includes the
changes... 

> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 58b542bf2893..1453a2cd0680 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -829,10 +829,12 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>   */
>  static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  {
> +	struct sched_dl_entity *pi_se = pi_of(dl_se);
>  	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
>  	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
> +	u64 dl_runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime <= 0);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(dl_runtime <= 0);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * This could be the case for a !-dl task that is boosted.
> @@ -851,10 +853,13 @@ static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  	 * arbitrary large.
>  	 */
>  	while (dl_se->runtime <= 0) {
> -		dl_se->deadline += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_period;
> -		dl_se->runtime += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime;
> +		dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period;
> +		dl_se->runtime += dl_runtime;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (dl_se->zerolax && dl_se->runtime > dl_runtime)
> +		dl_se->runtime = dl_runtime;
> +

This should ofcourse go in the if (dl_se->dl_zerolax_armed) branch a
little down from here.

>  	/*
>  	 * At this point, the deadline really should be "in
>  	 * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's