linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] sched: fix imbalance flag reset

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, 10 Jul 2014 16:34:04 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 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>,
	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>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] sched: fix imbalance flag reset

Hi Peter, Vincent,

On 07/10/2014 02:44 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 9 July 2014 12:43, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:24:54AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>
>>> Continuing with the above explanation; when LBF_ALL_PINNED flag is
>>> set,and we jump to out_balanced, we clear the imbalance flag for the
>>> sched_group comprising of cpu0 and cpu1,although there is actually an
>>> imbalance. t2 could still be migrated to say cpu2/cpu3 (t2 has them in
>>> its cpus allowed mask) in another sched group when load balancing is
>>> done at the next sched domain level.
>>
>> And this is where Vince is wrong; note how
>> update_sg_lb_stats()/sg_imbalance() uses group->sgc->imbalance, but
>> load_balance() sets: sd_parent->groups->sgc->imbalance, so explicitly
>> one level up.
>>
> 
> I forgot this behavior when studying preeti use case
> 
>> So what we can do I suppose is clear 'group->sgc->imbalance' at
>> out_balanced.
>>
>> In any case, the entirely of this group imbalance crap is just that,
>> crap. Its a terribly difficult situation and the current bits more or
>> less fudge around some of the common cases. Also see the comment near
>> sg_imbalanced(). Its not a solid and 'correct' anything. Its a bunch of
>> hacks trying to deal with hard cases.
>>
>> A 'good' solution would be prohibitively expensive I fear.
> 
> I have tried to summarized several use cases that have been discussed
> for this patch
> 
> The 1st use case is the one that i described in the commit message of
> this patch: If we have a sporadic imbalance that set the imbalance
> flag, we don't clear it after and it generates spurious and useless
> active load balance
> 
> Then preeti came with the following use case :
> we have a sched_domain made of CPU0 and CPU1 in 2 different sched_groups
> 2 tasks A and B are on CPU0, B can't run on CPU1, A is the running task.
> When CPU1's sched_group is doing load balance, the imbalance should be
> set. That's still happen with this patchset because the LBF_ALL_PINNED
> flag will be cleared thanks to task A.
> 
> Preeti also explained me the following use cases on irc:
> 
> If we have both tasks A and B that can't run on CPU1, the
> LBF_ALL_PINNED will stay set. As we can't do anything, we conclude
> that we are balanced, we go to out_balanced and we clear the imbalance
> flag. But we should not consider that as a balanced state but as a all
> tasks pinned state instead and we should let the imbalance flag set.
> If we now have 2 additional CPUs which are in the cpumask of task A
> and/or B at the parent sched_domain level , we should migrate one task
> in this group but this will not happen (with this patch) because the
> sched_group made of CPU0 and CPU1 is not overloaded (2 tasks for 2
> CPUs) and the imbalance flag has been cleared as described previously.

Peter,

The above paragraph describes my concern with regard to clearing the
imbalance flag at a given level of sched domain in case of pinned tasks
in the below conversation.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/9/454.

You are right about iterating through all tasks including the current
task during load balancing.

Thanks

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> I'm going to send a new revision of the patchset with the correction
> 
> Vincent
> 

--
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/