linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/32] nohz: Move nohz load balancer selection into idle logic

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:16:51 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/32] nohz: Move nohz load balancer selection into
 idle logic

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:45:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > We want the nohz load balancer to be an idle CPU, thus
> > > move that selection to strict dyntick idle logic.
> > 
> > Again, the important part is missing, why is this correct?
> > 
> > I'm not at all convinced this is correct, suppose all your cpus (except
> > the system CPU, which we'll assume has many tasks) are busy running 1
> > task. Then two of them get an extra task, now if those two happen to be
> > SMT siblings you want the load-balancer to pull on task out from the SMT
> > pair, however nobody is pulling since nobody is idle.
> > 
> > AFAICT this breaks stuff and the ILB needs some serious attention in
> > order to fix this.
> 
> Right, we have the support for trigger_load_balance() in scheduler_tick()
> that is still missing.
> 
> What about using that CPU that has to stay awake with a periodic tick
> to handle jiffies? We could force that CPU to be the idle load balancer.
> The problem is perhaps to find the right frequency for doing that because
> we have all the rq to handle.

If this CPU can also be the RCU grace-period advancer of last resort,
that would make it easier to arrive at an improved RCU_FAST_NO_HZ.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/