linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/cputime: let ktimers align with ksoftirqd in accounting CPUTIME

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: <20231208092616.LcwLlOyE@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 10:26:16 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Yuanhan Zhang <zyhtheonly@...il.com>, zyhtheonly@...h.net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        vschneid@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/cputime: let ktimers align with ksoftirqd in
 accounting CPUTIME_SOFTIRQ

On 2023-12-07 13:18:11 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 12:19:28 -0500
> Yuanhan Zhang <zyhtheonly@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> In irqtime_account_process_tick() there's:
> 
> 	if (this_cpu_ksoftirqd() == p) {
> 		/*
> 		 * ksoftirqd time do not get accounted in cpu_softirq_time.
> 		 * So, we have to handle it separately here.
> 		 * Also, p->stime needs to be updated for ksoftirqd.
> 		 */
> 		account_system_index_time(p, cputime, CPUTIME_SOFTIRQ);
> 
> Which to me looks like it is counting ksoftirqd for SOFTIRQ time. But
> honestly, why do we care about that? What's the difference if ksoftirqd
> were to run or softirqd were to pass work off to a workqueue?
> 
> ksoftirqd runs in vanilla Linux as SCHED_OTHER. The work it does doesn't
> interrupt processes any more than any other kernel thread. I don't know why
> we make it "special".

The special part is that it runs with disabled preemption the whole time
and the scheduler can't do a thing about it. This is different on
PREEMPT_RT where the softirq is preemptible and scheduler can replace it
with another task if suited. It still runs as SCHED_OTHER. The ktimers/
thread runs as SCHED_FIFO 1. So accounting it (incl. ksoftirqd) on
SYSTEM is fine IMHO. 

> I guess the better question I need to ask is, what is this information used
> for? I thought it was how much time was take away from tasks. As current
> would be a task, and we do care if a real softirq is running, as we do not
> want to add that to the current task accounting.
> 
> But for ksoftirqd, that's not the case, and I don't really care if it's
> running a softirq or not. As that time isn't interrupting actual tasks. Not
> to mention, one could simply look at the ksoftirqd tasks to see how much
> time they take up.

The original argument was to have the softirq counters right in
/proc/stat. This is what I remember from the trip to the museum.

> -- Steve

Sebastian