linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: fix SMT scheduler regression in find_busiest

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:28:44 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>, ego@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix SMT scheduler regression in
 find_busiest_queue()

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 21:29 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> Agreed.  Placement control should be handled by SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> and SD_POWER_SAVINGS flags.
> 
> --Vaidy
> 
> ---
> 
>     sched_smt_powersavings for threaded systems need this fix for
>     consolidation to sibling threads to work.  Since threads have 
>     fractional capacity, group_capacity will turn out to be one 
>     always and not accommodate another task in the sibling thread.
> 
>     This fix makes group_capacity a function of cpumask_weight that
>     will enable the power saving load balancer to pack tasks among
>     sibling threads and keep more cores idle.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 522cf0e..ec3a5c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -2538,9 +2538,17 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
>                  * In case the child domain prefers tasks go to siblings
>                  * first, lower the group capacity to one so that we'll try
>                  * and move all the excess tasks away.

I prefer a blank line in between two paragraphs, but even better would
be to place this comment at the else if site.

> +                * If power savings balance is set at this domain, then
> +                * make capacity equal to number of hardware threads to
> +                * accomodate more tasks until capacity is reached.  The

my spell checker seems to prefer: accommodate 

> +                * default is fractional capacity for sibling hardware
> +                * threads for fair use of available hardware resources.
>                  */
>                 if (prefer_sibling)
>                         sgs.group_capacity = min(sgs.group_capacity, 1UL);
> +               else if (sd->flags & SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE)
> +                       sgs.group_capacity =
> +                               cpumask_weight(sched_group_cpus(group));

I guess we should apply cpu_active_mask so that we properly deal with
offline siblings, except with cpumasks being the beasts they are I see
no cheap way to do that.

>                 if (local_group) {
>                         sds->this_load = sgs.avg_load;
> @@ -2855,7 +2863,8 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct sched_domain *sd, int sd_idle, int idle)
>                     !test_sd_parent(sd, SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE))
>                         return 0;
>  
> -               if (sched_mc_power_savings < POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP)
> +               if (sched_mc_power_savings < POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP &&
> +                   sched_smt_power_savings < POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP)
>                         return 0;
>         }

/me still hopes for that unification patch.. :-)

--
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/