linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: make update_sd_pick

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:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:27:28 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mikey@...ling.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	pjt@...gle.com, jhladky@...hat.com, ktkhai@...allels.com,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: make update_sd_pick_busiest return true on a
 busier sd

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:45:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Currently update_sd_pick_busiest only returns true when an sd
> is overloaded, or for SD_ASYM_PACKING when a domain is busier
> than average and a higher numbered domain than the target.
> 
> This breaks load balancing between domains that are not overloaded,
> in the !SD_ASYM_PACKING case. This patch makes update_sd_pick_busiest
> return true when the busiest sd yet is encountered.
> 
> On a 4 node system, this seems to result in the load balancer finally
> putting 1 thread of a 4 thread test run of "perf bench numa mem" on
> each node, where before the load was generally not spread across all
> nodes.

So for !ASYM the code is effectively:

	return sgs->avg_load > sds->busiest_stat.avg_load;

I'd like to at least add a clause that makes overloaded groups
prioritized over !overloaded groups.

Also, like we found earlier, calculate_imbalance() relies on the
sum_nr_running > group_capacity_factor thing, which you've just
'wrecked', so we'd need an update to that part too.

> Behaviour for SD_ASYM_PACKING does not seem to match the comment,
> in that groups with below average load average are ignored, but I
> have no hardware to test that so I have left the behaviour of that
> code unchanged.

Mikey, does that stuff work as expected?
--
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/