| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:29:24 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Nominate idle load balancer from a
semi-idle package.
Hi Jaswinder,
Thanks for the review. Comments interspersed.
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:22:11PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> Here are some minor issues:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> > index 706517c..4fc1ec0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4283,10 +4283,108 @@ static void active_load_balance(struct rq *busiest_rq, int busiest_cpu)
> > static struct {
> > atomic_t load_balancer;
> > cpumask_var_t cpu_mask;
> > + cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
>
> Can you find some better name than tmpmask.
Sure, I'll think of it. The cpumask is required to store some
intermediate results when we compute the idle_loadbalancer. Any
suggestions ?
>
> > } nohz ____cacheline_aligned = {
> > .load_balancer = ATOMIC_INIT(-1),
> > };
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
> > +/**
>
> ^^^^^^
> This comment is not valid and even Randy send patches to fix these
> comments and also shared the error messages because of these comments by
> your earlier patches. Replace it with /*
I think you're referring to this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/29/7
I had missed this patch. Thanks for pointing it out.
I think Randy's patch was addressing the issue of structs
not requiring a /** style comments. But in this case,
it's a function, and hence needs kernel-doc style notation. Or am I
missing something here ? Point about the single-line
short function description is well taken.
>
> > + * lowest_flag_domain: Returns the lowest sched_domain
> > + * that has the given flag set for a particular cpu.
> > + * @cpu: The cpu whose lowest level of sched domain is to
> > + * be returned.
> > + *
> > + * @flag: The flag to check for the lowest sched_domain
> > + * for the given cpu
> > + */
> > +static inline struct sched_domain *lowest_flag_domain(int cpu, int flag)
> > +{
> > + struct sched_domain *sd;
> > +
> > + for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
> > + if (sd && (sd->flags & flag))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + return sd;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
>
> Ditto.
>
Ditto :-)
> > + * for_each_flag_domain: Iterates over all the scheduler domains
> > + * for a given cpu that has the 'flag' set, starting from
> > + * the lowest to the highest.
> > + * @cpu: The cpu whose domains we're iterating over.
> > + * @sd: variable holding the value of the power_savings_sd
> > + * for cpu
>
> This can be come in one line:
Agreed. Will correct this.
>
> + * @sd: variable holding the value of the power_savings_sd for cpu
>
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_flag_domain(cpu, sd, flag) \
> > + for (sd = lowest_flag_domain(cpu, flag); \
> > + (sd && (sd->flags & flag)); sd = sd->parent)
> > +
> > +static inline int is_semi_idle_group(struct sched_group *ilb_group)
> > +{
> > + cpumask_and(nohz.tmpmask, nohz.cpu_mask, sched_group_cpus(ilb_group));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * A sched_group is semi-idle when it has atleast one busy cpu
> > + * and atleast one idle cpu.
> > + */
> > + if (!(cpumask_empty(nohz.tmpmask) ||
> > + cpumask_equal(nohz.tmpmask, sched_group_cpus(ilb_group))))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +/**
>
> Ditto.
>
Ditto!
> > + * find_new_ilb: Finds or nominates a new idle load balancer.
> > + * @cpu: The cpu which is nominating a new idle_load_balancer.
> > + *
> > + * This algorithm picks the idle load balancer such that it belongs to a
> > + * semi-idle powersavings sched_domain. The idea is to try and avoid
> > + * completely idle packages/cores just for the purpose of idle load balancing
> > + * when there are other idle cpu's which are better suited for that job.
> > + */
> > +static int find_new_ilb(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + struct sched_domain *sd;
> > + struct sched_group *ilb_group;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Optimization for the case when there is no idle cpu or
> > + * only 1 idle cpu to choose from.
> > + */
> > + if (cpumask_weight(nohz.cpu_mask) < 2)
> > + goto out_done;
> > +
>
> We can simply avoid these gotos.
Not really! When we don't have any idle cpu or have only one idle cpu,
it doesn't make sense to walk the domain-hierarchy to find the idle load
balancer. In the former case, there is none. In the latter case, there's
only one.
But to verify what effect this optimization might have,
I ran kernbench on a large box (112 CPUS) and here
are the results.
-----------------------------------------------
make -j$i patch patch
without gotos with gotos
-----------------------------------------------
1 1230.87 s 1195.95 s
2 850.51 s 596.45 s
4 368.91 s 310.49 s
6 255.61 s 216.31 s
8 201.94 s 167.89 s
10 168.95 s 138.30 s
12 151.64 s 123.14 s
14 135.98 s 108.72 s
28 86.09 s 70.92 s
56 61.11 s 55.52 s
112 49.30 s 47.23 s
------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the patch with gotos gives us a better score than the one
without.
>
> --
> JSR
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists