linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/6] sched, nohz: sched group, domain aware nohz idle load balancing

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

Date:	Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:47:43 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.jf.intel.com>, alex.shi@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/6] sched, nohz: sched group, domain aware nohz idle
 load balancing

On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:03 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>  static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
>  {
>         unsigned long now = jiffies;
>         struct sched_domain *sd;
>  
> +       if (unlikely(idle_cpu(cpu)))
> +               return 0;
> +
>         /*
>          * We were recently in tickless idle mode. At the first busy tick
>          * after returning from idle, we will update the busy stats.
> @@ -5120,36 +5047,43 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struc
>         if (unlikely(test_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu)))) {
>                 clear_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu));
>  
> +               cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> +               atomic_dec(&nohz.nr_cpus);
> +
>                 for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
>                         atomic_inc(&sd->groups->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
>         }
>  
> +       /*
> +        * None are in tickless mode and hence no need for NOHZ idle load
> +        * balancing.
> +        */
> +       if (likely(!atomic_read(&nohz.nr_cpus)))
>                 return 0;
>  
> +       if (time_before(now, nohz.next_balance))
>                 return 0;
>  
> +       if (rq->nr_running >= 2)
> +               goto need_kick;
>  
> +       for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> +               struct sched_group *sg = sd->groups;
> +               struct sched_group_power *sgp = sg->sgp;
> +               int nr_busy = atomic_read(&sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
> +
> +               if (nr_busy > 1 && (nr_busy * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE > sgp->power))
> +                       goto need_kick;

This looks wrong, its basically always true for a box with HT.

sgp->power is a measure of how much compute power this group has, its
basic form is sg->weight * SCHED_POWER_SCALE and is reduced from there;
HT siblings get less since they're not as powerful as two actual cores
and we deduct time spend on RT-tasks and IRQs etc..

So how does comparing the load of non-nohz cpus to that make sense?

> +
> +               if (sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING && nr_busy != sg->group_weight
> +                   && (cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
> +                                         sched_domain_span(sd)) < cpu))
> +                       goto need_kick;
>         }
> +
>         return 0;
> +need_kick:
> +       return 1;
>  } 
--
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/