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: <20251112104555.GE4068168@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 11:45:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:37:40AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 01:32:23PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >  	group = sched_balance_find_src_group(&env);
> > >  	if (!group) {
> > >  		schedstat_inc(sd->lb_nobusyg[idle]);
> > > @@ -11892,6 +11916,9 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> > >  			if (!cpumask_subset(cpus, env.dst_grpmask)) {
> > >  				env.loop = 0;
> > >  				env.loop_break = SCHED_NR_MIGRATE_BREAK;
> > > +				if (need_unlock)
> > > +					atomic_set_release(&sched_balance_running, 0);
> > > +
> > 
> > One nit:
> > While the current code is good, would conditionally resetting the
> > need_unlock just after resetting the atomic variable better than
> > unconditional reset that we do now?
> 
> Right, I had the same thought when grabbed the patch yesterday, but
> ignored it.
> 

Hmm, should we not redo while keeping the lock? Doesn't make much sense
to drop and try to reacquire things here.

So perhaps this is the better option -- or did I overlook something with
should_we_balance? It doesn't look like that will make a different
decision on the retry.

---
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11717,26 +11717,25 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu
 		.fbq_type	= all,
 		.tasks		= LIST_HEAD_INIT(env.tasks),
 	};
-	bool need_unlock;
+	bool need_unlock = false;
 
 	cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_active_mask);
 
 	schedstat_inc(sd->lb_count[idle]);
 
-redo:
-	need_unlock = false;
 	if (!should_we_balance(&env)) {
 		*continue_balancing = 0;
 		goto out_balanced;
 	}
 
 	if (sd->flags & SD_SERIALIZE) {
-		if (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&sched_balance_running, 0, 1)) {
+		if (!atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sched_balance_running, 0, 1))
 			goto out_balanced;
-		}
+
 		need_unlock = true;
 	}
 
+redo:
 	group = sched_balance_find_src_group(&env);
 	if (!group) {
 		schedstat_inc(sd->lb_nobusyg[idle]);
@@ -11861,9 +11860,6 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu
 			if (!cpumask_subset(cpus, env.dst_grpmask)) {
 				env.loop = 0;
 				env.loop_break = SCHED_NR_MIGRATE_BREAK;
-				if (need_unlock)
-					atomic_set_release(&sched_balance_running, 0);
-
 				goto redo;
 			}
 			goto out_all_pinned;