linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least one movable task"

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: <CABk29Nts22FySj_hrX2hnSCLvs4eSuPA69WrOW_RbVG6RA6FwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:48:28 -0700
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least
 one movable task"

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 2:19 AM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 23:45, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > This reverts commit b0defa7ae03ecf91b8bfd10ede430cff12fcbd06.
> >
> > b0defa7ae03ec changed the load balancing logic to ignore env.max_loop if
> > all tasks examined to that point were pinned. The goal of the patch was
> > to make it more likely to be able to detach a task buried in a long list
> > of pinned tasks. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of
> > creating an O(n) iteration in detach_tasks(), as we now must fully
> > iterate every task on a cpu if all or most are pinned. Since this load
> > balance code is done with rq lock held, and often in softirq context, it
> > is very easy to trigger hard lockups. We observed such hard lockups with
> > a user who affined O(10k) threads to a single cpu.
> >
> > When I discussed this with Vincent he initially suggested that we keep
> > the limit on the number of tasks to detach, but increase the number of
> > tasks we can search. However, after some back and forth on the mailing
> > list, he recommended we instead revert the original patch, as it seems
> > likely no one was actually getting hit by the original issue.
> >
>
> Maybe add a
> Fixes: b0defa7ae03e ("sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least
> one movable task")

Ack

>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>

Thanks Vincent!