netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/6] pkt_sched: sch_htb: Consider used jiffies in htb

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: <493E63AB.80400@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:25:15 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Martin Devera <devik@....cz>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] pkt_sched: sch_htb: Consider used jiffies in	htb_dequeue()

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:28:44AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> -	/* too much load - let's continue on next jiffie (including above) */
>>> -	return q->now + 2 * PSCHED_TICKS_PER_SEC / HZ;
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Too much load - let's continue on next jiffie.
>>> +	 * (Used jiffies are charged later.)
>>> +	 */
>>> +	return q->now + 1;
>>>  
>> This (including the last patch) is really confusing - q->now doesn't
>> contain HZ values but psched ticks. Could you describe the overall
>> algorithm you're trying to implement please?
> 
> The algorithm is we want to "continue on the next jiffie". We know
> we've lost here a lot of time (~2 jiffies), and this will be added
> later. Since these jiffies are not precise enough wrt. psched ticks
> or ktime, and we will add around 2000 (for HZ 1000) psched ticks
> anyway this +1 here simply doesn't matter and can mean "a bit after
> q->now".

This might as well return q->now, no? The elapsed time is added
on top later anyways. But anyways, I think both the approach and
the patch are wrong.

	/* charge used jiffies */
	start_at = jiffies - start_at;
	if (start_at > 0)
		next_event += start_at * PSCHED_TICKS_PER_SEC / HZ;

What relationship does the duration it ran for has to the time it
should run at again?

The focus on jiffies is wrong IMO, the reason why we get high
load is because the CPU can't keep up, delaying things even
longer is not going to help get the work done. The only reason to
look at jiffies is because its a cheap indication that it has
ran for too long and we should give other tasks a change to run
as well, but it should continue immediately after it did that.
So all it should do is make sure that the watchdog is scheduled
with a very small positive delay.

As for the implementation: the increase in delay (the snippet
above) is also done in the case that no packets were available
for other reasons (throttling), in which case we might needlessly
delay for an extra jiffie if jiffies wrapped while it tried to
dequeue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html