From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AACC35657 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B383120722 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="PYtEWEGA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728206AbgBURJT (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:09:19 -0500 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:48334 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726829AbgBURJT (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:09:19 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01LH8w3S171559; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:08:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=LwPKsI5sFWoV7ykYzB24KxU9VFfUY0OqDfnKOcEAi84=; b=PYtEWEGAFnAFQunaXTzFOoWcr+GBVx4cx5h6cGVx3+nkbVsuHYa9MMEewx8IVsceVCza VqPTq+epnl4wRh2RCfcDB8Bi86+29CWxxPNOZhzJbhn+auJk8VsbUcYPG3hfTvw7nb7O 2UoBRIwhqSTwwjkn9kDg4HXBb9b/5HIC4+pG6gJ7cTrCVJNV/ZkAHFrAWstnk+i/m5XF g0w8dyqtzsr5enCn4BsIbT3onqJRzFtn1LGV7ho34bjMCQfqPnSbYWFuokcPh/V+j04V SW5cz5LlP7NFZ/RhVoQSkGq5aaMJkXmSydOci73mwIbM4DN0bg8u+5Qz4ccFh1Nb+ncD Mg== Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y8uddhtwh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:08:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01LH7jTQ137255; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:08:53 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y8ud73sb6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:08:52 +0000 Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01LH8nJI024648; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:08:49 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.195] (/69.207.174.138) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:08:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce per-task latency_nice for scheduler hints To: Qais Yousef Cc: Parth Shah , vincent.guittot@linaro.org, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, valentin.schneider@arm.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@qperret.net, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, pjt@google.com, tj@kernel.org References: <8ed0f40c-eeb4-c487-5420-a8eb185b5cdd@linux.ibm.com> <971909ed-d4e0-6afa-d20b-365ede5a195e@linux.ibm.com> <8e984496-e89b-d96c-d84e-2be7f0958ea4@oracle.com> <1e216d18-7ec0-4a0d-e124-b730d6e03e6f@oracle.com> <7429e0ae-41ff-e9c4-dd65-3ef1919f5f50@linux.ibm.com> <20200220150343.dvweamfnk257pg7z@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <9bb1437b-3de0-b0ca-6319-6be903b0758d@oracle.com> <20200221092956.jpsfps2dgmhiu5vg@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> From: chris hyser Message-ID: <5f379778-86ee-cefd-c00f-60834dadbacd@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:08:45 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200221092956.jpsfps2dgmhiu5vg@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9538 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=2 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002210129 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9538 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=2 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002210129 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/21/20 4:29 AM, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 02/20/20 11:34, chris hyser wrote: >>>> Whether called a hint or not, it is a trade-off to reduce latency of select >>>> tasks at the expense of the throughput of the other tasks in the the system. >>> >>> Does it actually affect the throughput of the other tasks? I thought this will >>> allow the scheduler to reduce latencies, for instance, when selecting which cpu >>> it should land on. I can't see how this could hurt other tasks. >> >> This is why it is hard to argue about pure abstractions. The primary idea >> mentioned so far for how these latencies are reduced is by short cutting the >> brute-force search for something idle. If you don't find an idle cpu because >> you didn't spend the time to look, then you pre-empted a task, possibly with >> a large nice warm cache footprint that was cranking away on throughput. It >> is ultimately going to be the usual latency vs throughput trade off. If >> latency reduction were "free" we wouldn't need a per task attribute. We >> would just do the reduction for all tasks, everywhere, all the time. > > This could still happen without the latency nice bias. I'm not sure if this True, but without a bias towards a user at the users request, it's just normal scheduler policy. :-) > falls under DoS; maybe if you end up spawning a lot of task with high latency > nice value, then you might end up cramming a lot of tasks on a small subset of > CPUs. But then, shouldn't the logic that uses latency_nice try to handle this > case anyway since it could be legit? One of the experiments I'm planning is basically that; how badly can this be abused by root. Like pretty much everything else, if root wants to destroy the system, not much you can do, but I find it useful to look at the pathological cases as well. > > Not sure if this can be used by someone to trigger timing based attacks on > another process. > > I can't fully see the whole security implications, but regardless. I do agree > it is prudent to not allow tasks to set their own latency_nice. Mainly because > the meaning of this flag will be system dependent and I think Admins are the > better ones to decide how to use this flag for the system they're running on. > I don't think application writers should be able to tweak their tasks > latency_nice value. Not if they can't get the right privilege at least. Agreed. > >> >>> >>> Can you expand on the scenario you have in mind please? >> >> Hopefully, the above helps. It was my original plan to introduce this with a >> data laden RFC on the topic, but I felt the need to respond to Parth >> immediately. I'm not currently pushing any particular change. > > Thanks! No problem. -chrish