linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched

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: <20250523145942.GL39944@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 16:59:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class
 change for throttled task

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 08:49:43PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:03:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > This is asymmetric -- dequeue removes it from that throttle list, but
> > the corresponding enqueue will not add it back, what gives?
> > 
> > Because now we have:
> > 
> >  p->on_rq=1
> >  p->throttle_node on list
> > 
> > move_queued_task()
> >   deactivate_task()
> >     dequeue_task_fair()
> >       list_del_init(throttle_node)
> >     p->on_rq = 2
> > 
> >   activate_task()
> >     enqueue_task_fair()
> >       // nothing special, makes the thing runnable
> >     p->on_rq = 1;
> > 
> > and we exit with a task that is on-rq and not throttled ?!?
> >
> > Why is this? Are we relying on pick_task_fair() to dequeue it again and
> > fix up our inconsistencies? If so, that had better have a comment on.
> 
> Correct.

But would it not be better to have enqueue bail when we're trying to
enqueue an already throttled task into a throttled cfs_rq?

It seems a waste to do the actual enqueue, pick, dequeue when we
could've just avoided all that.

The immediate problem seems to be that you destroy the
task_is_throttled() state on dequeue, but surely that is trivially
fixable by not keeping that state in the list.