linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] sched: remove a wake

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:	Wed, 28 May 2014 16:09:44 +0100
From:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] sched: remove a wake_affine condition

Hi Vincent & Peter,

On 28/05/14 07:49, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> 
> Nick,
> 
> While doing some rework on the wake affine part of the scheduler, i
> failed to catch the use case that takes advantage of a condition that
> you added some while ago with the commit
> a3f21bce1fefdf92a4d1705e888d390b10f3ac6f
> 
> Could you help us to clarify the 2 first lines of the test that you added ?
> +                       if ((tl <= load &&
> +                               tl + target_load(cpu, idx) <=
> SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) ||
> +                               100*(tl + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) <= imbalance*load) {
> 
> Regards,
> Vincent
>>
>>>
>>>>> commit a3f21bce1fefdf92a4d1705e888d390b10f3ac6f
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +                       if ((tl <= load &&
>>>>> +                               tl + target_load(cpu, idx) <= SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) ||
>>>>> +                               100*(tl + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) <= imbalance*load) {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So back when the code got introduced, it read:
>>>>>
>>>>>         target_load(prev_cpu, idx) - sync*SCHED_LOAD_SCALE < source_load(this_cpu, idx) &&
>>>>>         target_load(prev_cpu, idx) - sync*SCHED_LOAD_SCALE + target_load(this_cpu, idx) < SCHED_LOAD_SCALE
>>>>>

Shouldn't this be 

target_load(this_cpu, idx) - sync*SCHED_LOAD_SCALE <= source_load(prev_cpu, idx) &&
target_load(this_cpu, idx) - sync*SCHED_LOAD_SCALE + target_load(prev_cpu, idx) <= SCHED_LOAD_SCALE

"[PATCH] sched: implement smpnice" (2dd73a4f09beacadde827a032cf15fd8b1fa3d48)
mentions that SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE (IMHO, should be SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) represents
the load contribution of a single task. So I read the second part as if
the sum of the load of this_cpu and prev_cpu is smaller or equal to the
(maximal) load contribution (maximal possible effect) of a single task.

There is even a comment in "[PATCH] sched: tweak affine wakeups"
(a3f21bce1fefdf92a4d1705e888d390b10f3ac6f) in try_to_wake_up() when
SCHED_LOAD_SCALE gets subtracted from tl = this_load =
target_load(this_cpu, idx):

+ * If sync wakeup then subtract the (maximum possible)
+ * effect of the currently running task from the load
+ * of the current CPU:

"[PATCH] sched: implement smpnice" then replaces SCHED_LOAD_SCALE w/ 

+static inline unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
+{
+       runqueue_t *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+       unsigned long n = rq->nr_running;
+
+       return n ?  rq->raw_weighted_load / n : SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;

-- Dietmar

>>>>> So while the first line makes some sense, the second line is still
>>>>> somewhat challenging.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read the second line something like: if there's less than one full
>>>>> task running on the combined cpus.
>>>>
>>>> ok. your explanation makes sense
>>>
>>> Maybe, its still slightly weird :-)
>>>
>>>>>
[...]

--
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/