linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: Skip sched_balance

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: <aRSvfJmQTGfdS0fc@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:32:04 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@...el.com>,
        Mohini Narkhede <mohini.narkhede@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: Skip sched_balance_running cmpxchg when
 balance is not due

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2025-11-12 14:39:37]:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 04:55:48PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> > If the CPU that was doing the balance was not the first CPU of the domain
> > span, but it was doing the balance since the first CPU was busy, and the
> > first CPU now happens to be idle at redo, the scheduler would have chosen the
> > first CPU to do the balance. However it will now choose the CPU that had the atomic..
> > 
> > I think this is better because 
> > - The first CPU may have tried just before this CPU dropped the atomic and
> >   hence we may miss the balance opportunity.
> > - The first CPU and the other CPU may not be sharing cache and hence there
> >   may be a cache-miss, which we are avoiding by doing this.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing for. Are you saying it
> would be better to retain the lock where possible?
> 

Yes, I was supporting keeping the lock and not check should_we_balance() with
lock held.

Lets say CPU2 enters sched_balance_rq(), should_we_balance succeeds, CPU 2 take
the lock. It calls redo, and this time should_we_balance() may not succeed for
CPU 2 (since CPU 0/1 is idle). However CPU0 may have already raced with CPU2
and tried to take the lock before CPU2 released it and bailed out. So we miss a
balancing opportunity.

> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju