On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:12:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:19:38PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> >> My idea was to use task_rq_lock() to lock the runqueue and then check
>> >> tsk->on_cpu.  I think Peter wasn't too keen on it.
>> >
>> > That basically allows a DoS on the scheduler, since a user can run tasks
>> > on every cpu (through sys_sched_setaffinity()). Then doing while (1) cat
>> > /proc/$PID/stack would saturate the rq->lock on every CPU.
>> >
>> > The more tasks the merrier.
>> Is this worse than it would be if this code used preempt_disable()
>> (which I think it did until very recently)?
> Much worse, since the proposed task_rq_lock() not only disables
> preemption, it also disables IRQs and takes 2 locks. And hogging the
> rq->lock affects other tasks their ability to schedule.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure I care quite enough about /proc/PID/stack to personally
dig through the scheduler and find a way to cleanly say "please don't
run this task for a little while".

Reply via email to