linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic NUMA balance after 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:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:37:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic
 NUMA balance after wake_affine

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:11:31PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> +static void
> +update_wa_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int target)
> +{
> +	unsigned long interval;
> +
> +	if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* If balancing has no preference then accept the target */
> +	if (p->numa_preferred_nid == -1)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* If the wakeup is not affecting locality then accept the target */
> +	if (cpus_share_cache(prev_cpu, target))
> +		return;

Both the above comments speak of 'accepting' the target, but its a void
function, there's nothing they can do about it. It cannot not accept the
placement.

> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Temporarily prevent NUMA balancing trying to place waker/wakee after
> +	 * wakee has been moved by wake_affine. This will potentially allow
> +	 * related tasks to converge and update their data placement. The
> +	 * 4 * numa_scan_period is to allow the two-pass filter to migrate
> +	 * hot data to the wakers node.
> +	 */
> +	interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> +			 p->numa_scan_period << 2);
> +	p->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +
> +	interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> +			 current->numa_scan_period << 2);
> +	current->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +}

Otherwise that makes sense.