Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:34:55 +0300 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ksm: React on changing "sleep_millisecs" parameter faster |
| |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:22:42PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > On 11.12.2018 14:13, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:26:59PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > >> ksm thread unconditionally sleeps in ksm_scan_thread() > >> after each iteration: > >> > >> schedule_timeout_interruptible( > >> msecs_to_jiffies(ksm_thread_sleep_millisecs)) > >> > >> The timeout is configured in /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/sleep_millisecs. > >> > >> In case of user writes a big value by a mistake, and the thread > >> enters into schedule_timeout_interruptible(), it's not possible > >> to cancel the sleep by writing a new smaler value; the thread > >> is just sleeping till timeout expires. > >> > >> The patch fixes the problem by waking the thread each time > >> after the value is updated. > >> > >> This also may be useful for debug purposes; and also for userspace > >> daemons, which change sleep_millisecs value in dependence of > >> system load. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> > >> > >> v2: Use wait_event_interruptible_timeout() instead of unconditional > >> schedule_timeout(). > > ... > >> @@ -2844,7 +2849,10 @@ static ssize_t sleep_millisecs_store(struct kobject *kobj, > >> if (err || msecs > UINT_MAX) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> > >> + mutex_lock(&ksm_thread_mutex); > >> ksm_thread_sleep_millisecs = msecs; > >> + mutex_unlock(&ksm_thread_mutex); > >> + wake_up_interruptible(&ksm_iter_wait); > > > > Btw, just thought -- if we start using this mutex here don't we > > open a window for force attack on the thread self execution, > > iow if there gonna be a million of writers do we have a guarantee > > thread ksm_scan_thread will grab the mutex earlier than writers > > (or somewhere inbetween)? > > This file is permitted for global root only. I don't think there is > a problem. > > If someone wants to make ksm helpless, a person may just write a big > "sleep_millisecs" value. KSM thread won't be executed almost all the time > in this case.
True. Still I think if we can leave without taking a lock it a rule of thumb. Something like
if (msecs != ksm_thread_sleep_millisecs) wake_up_interruptable(&ksm_iter_wait);
Thoughts?
| |