linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Disable scheduler feature NEXT

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: <CAKfTPtAaA0MhETLCK29h3DJeBRmfC73bhyz7wYyn7osdj1Expw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:42:16 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Christian.Loehle@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Disable scheduler feature NEXT_BUDDY

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 11:09, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 11:04:20AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 10:53, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 06:34:28PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >
> > > > The new NEXT_BUDDY implementation is doing more than setting a buddy;
> > > > it also breaks the run to parity mechanism by always setting next
> > > > buddy during wakeup_preempt_fair() even if there is no relation
> > > > between the 2 tasks and PICK_BUDDY bypasses protections
> > > >
> > > > In addition to disable NEXT_BUDDY, i suggest to also revert the force
> > > > preemption section below which also breaks run_to_parity by doing an
> > > > assumption whereas WF_SYNC is normally there for such purpose
> > > >
> > > > -- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -8822,16 +8822,6 @@ static void wakeup_preempt_fair(struct rq *rq,
> > > > struct task_struct *p, int wake_f
> > > >         if ((wake_flags & WF_FORK) || pse->sched_delayed)
> > > >                 return;
> > > >
> > > > -       /*
> > > > -        * If @p potentially is completing work required by current then
> > > > -        * consider preemption.
> > > > -        *
> > > > -        * Reschedule if waker is no longer eligible. */
> > > > -       if (in_task() && !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se)) {
> > > > -               preempt_action = PREEMPT_WAKEUP_RESCHED;
> > > > -               goto preempt;
> > > > -       }
> > > > -
> > > >         /* Prefer picking wakee soon if appropriate. */
> > > >         if (sched_feat(NEXT_BUDDY) &&
> > > >             set_preempt_buddy(cfs_rq, wake_flags, pse, se)) {
> > > >
> > > > This largely increases the number of resched and preemption because a
> > > > task becomes quickly "ineligible": We update our internal vruntime
> > > > periodically and before the task exhausted its slice.
> > >
> > > Hmm, fair enough. Do I munge that into Mel's patch, or should I create a
> > > second patch from you for this?
> >
> > I can prepare a patch with description and sent it right now if you want
>
> Sure that works. Then I'll stick both into tip/sched/urgent or
> thereabout :-)

I sent it.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260123102858.52428-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/