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:	Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:31:35 +0800
From:	Sam Ben <sam.bennn@...il.com>
To:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sched: smart wake-affine foundation

On 07/04/2013 12:55 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
> this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
> extreme ping-pong case.

What's the meaning of ping-pong case?

>
> And testing show it could benefit hackbench 15% at most.
>
> However, the whole stuff is somewhat blindly and time-consuming, some
> workload therefore suffer.
>
> And testing show it could damage pgbench 50% at most.
>
> Thus, wake-affine stuff should be more smart, and realise when to stop
> it's thankless effort.
>
> This patch introduced 'nr_wakee_switch', which will be increased each
> time the task switch it's wakee.
>
> So a high 'nr_wakee_switch' means the task has more than one wakee, and
> bigger the number, higher the wakeup frequency.
>
> Now when making the decision on whether to pull or not, pay attention on
> the wakee with a high 'nr_wakee_switch', pull such task may benefit wakee,
> but also imply that waker will face cruel competition later, it could be
> very cruel or very fast depends on the story behind 'nr_wakee_switch',
> whatever, waker therefore suffer.
>
> Furthermore, if waker also has a high 'nr_wakee_switch', imply that multiple
> tasks rely on it, then waker's higher latency will damage all of them, pull
> wakee seems to be a bad deal.
>
> Thus, when 'waker->nr_wakee_switch / wakee->nr_wakee_switch' become higher
> and higher, the deal seems to be worse and worse.
>
> The patch therefore help wake-affine stuff to stop it's work when:
>
> 	wakee->nr_wakee_switch > factor &&
> 	waker->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * wakee->nr_wakee_switch)
>
> The factor here is the node-size of current-cpu, so bigger node will lead
> to more pull since the trial become more severe.
>
> After applied the patch, pgbench show 40% improvement at most.
>
> Test:
> 	Tested with 12 cpu X86 server and tip 3.10.0-rc7.
>
> 	pgbench		    base	smart
>
> 	| db_size | clients |  tps  |	|  tps  |
> 	+---------+---------+-------+   +-------+
> 	| 22 MB   |       1 | 10598 |   | 10796 |
> 	| 22 MB   |       2 | 21257 |   | 21336 |
> 	| 22 MB   |       4 | 41386 |   | 41622 |
> 	| 22 MB   |       8 | 51253 |   | 57932 |
> 	| 22 MB   |      12 | 48570 |   | 54000 |
> 	| 22 MB   |      16 | 46748 |   | 55982 | +19.75%
> 	| 22 MB   |      24 | 44346 |   | 55847 | +25.93%
> 	| 22 MB   |      32 | 43460 |   | 54614 | +25.66%
> 	| 7484 MB |       1 |  8951 |   |  9193 |
> 	| 7484 MB |       2 | 19233 |   | 19240 |
> 	| 7484 MB |       4 | 37239 |   | 37302 |
> 	| 7484 MB |       8 | 46087 |   | 50018 |
> 	| 7484 MB |      12 | 42054 |   | 48763 |
> 	| 7484 MB |      16 | 40765 |   | 51633 | +26.66%
> 	| 7484 MB |      24 | 37651 |   | 52377 | +39.11%
> 	| 7484 MB |      32 | 37056 |   | 51108 | +37.92%
> 	| 15 GB   |       1 |  8845 |   |  9104 |
> 	| 15 GB   |       2 | 19094 |   | 19162 |
> 	| 15 GB   |       4 | 36979 |   | 36983 |
> 	| 15 GB   |       8 | 46087 |   | 49977 |
> 	| 15 GB   |      12 | 41901 |   | 48591 |
> 	| 15 GB   |      16 | 40147 |   | 50651 | +26.16%
> 	| 15 GB   |      24 | 37250 |   | 52365 | +40.58%
> 	| 15 GB   |      32 | 36470 |   | 50015 | +37.14%
>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/sched.h |    3 +++
>   kernel/sched/fair.c   |   47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 178a8d9..1c996c7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1041,6 +1041,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>   #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>   	struct llist_node wake_entry;
>   	int on_cpu;
> +	struct task_struct *last_wakee;
> +	unsigned long nr_wakee_switch;
> +	unsigned long last_switch_decay;
>   #endif
>   	int on_rq;
>   
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index c61a614..a4ddbf5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2971,6 +2971,23 @@ static unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +static void record_wakee(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Rough decay(wiping) for cost saving, don't worry
> +	 * about the boundary, really active task won't care
> +	 * the loose.
> +	 */
> +	if (jiffies > current->last_switch_decay + HZ) {
> +		current->nr_wakee_switch = 0;
> +		current->last_switch_decay = jiffies;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (current->last_wakee != p) {
> +		current->last_wakee = p;
> +		current->nr_wakee_switch++;
> +	}
> +}
>   
>   static void task_waking_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>   {
> @@ -2991,6 +3008,7 @@ static void task_waking_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>   #endif
>   
>   	se->vruntime -= min_vruntime;
> +	record_wakee(p);
>   }
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> @@ -3109,6 +3127,28 @@ static inline unsigned long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu,
>   
>   #endif
>   
> +static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	int factor = nr_cpus_node(cpu_to_node(smp_processor_id()));
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Yeah, it's the switching-frequency, could means many wakee or
> +	 * rapidly switch, use factor here will just help to automatically
> +	 * adjust the loose-degree, so bigger node will lead to more pull.
> +	 */
> +	if (p->nr_wakee_switch > factor) {
> +		/*
> +		 * wakee is somewhat hot, it needs certain amount of cpu
> +		 * resource, so if waker is far more hot, prefer to leave
> +		 * it alone.
> +		 */
> +		if (current->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * p->nr_wakee_switch))
> +			return 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int sync)
>   {
>   	s64 this_load, load;
> @@ -3118,6 +3158,13 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int sync)
>   	unsigned long weight;
>   	int balanced;
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * If we wake multiple tasks be careful to not bounce
> +	 * ourselves around too much.
> +	 */
> +	if (wake_wide(p))
> +		return 0;
> +
>   	idx	  = sd->wake_idx;
>   	this_cpu  = smp_processor_id();
>   	prev_cpu  = task_cpu(p);

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ