| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:37:27 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] sched/fair: Do not migrate on wake_affine_weight if weights are equal
wake_affine_weight() will consider migrating a task to, or near, the current
CPU if there is a load imbalance. If the CPUs share LLC then either CPU
is valid as a search-for-idle-sibling target and equally appropriate for
stacking two tasks on one CPU if an idle sibling is unavailable. If they do
not share cache then a cross-node migration potentially impacts locality
so while they are equal from a CPU capacity point of view, they are not
equal in terms of memory locality. In either case, it's more appropriate
to migrate only if there is a difference in their effective load.
This patch modifies wake_affine_weight to only consider migrating a task
if there is a load imbalance for normal wakeups but will allow potential
stacking if the loads are equal and it's a sync wakeup.
For the most part, the different in performance is marginal. For example,
on a 4-socket server running netperf UDP_STREAM on localhost the differences
are as follows
4.15.0 4.15.0
16rc0 noequal-v1r23
Hmean send-64 355.47 ( 0.00%) 349.50 ( -1.68%)
Hmean send-128 697.98 ( 0.00%) 693.35 ( -0.66%)
Hmean send-256 1328.02 ( 0.00%) 1318.77 ( -0.70%)
Hmean send-1024 5051.83 ( 0.00%) 5051.11 ( -0.01%)
Hmean send-2048 9637.02 ( 0.00%) 9601.34 ( -0.37%)
Hmean send-3312 14355.37 ( 0.00%) 14414.51 ( 0.41%)
Hmean send-4096 16464.97 ( 0.00%) 16301.37 ( -0.99%)
Hmean send-8192 26722.42 ( 0.00%) 26428.95 ( -1.10%)
Hmean send-16384 38137.81 ( 0.00%) 38046.11 ( -0.24%)
Hmean recv-64 355.47 ( 0.00%) 349.50 ( -1.68%)
Hmean recv-128 697.98 ( 0.00%) 693.35 ( -0.66%)
Hmean recv-256 1328.02 ( 0.00%) 1318.77 ( -0.70%)
Hmean recv-1024 5051.83 ( 0.00%) 5051.11 ( -0.01%)
Hmean recv-2048 9636.95 ( 0.00%) 9601.30 ( -0.37%)
Hmean recv-3312 14355.32 ( 0.00%) 14414.48 ( 0.41%)
Hmean recv-4096 16464.74 ( 0.00%) 16301.16 ( -0.99%)
Hmean recv-8192 26721.63 ( 0.00%) 26428.17 ( -1.10%)
Hmean recv-16384 38136.00 ( 0.00%) 38044.88 ( -0.24%)
Stddev send-64 7.30 ( 0.00%) 4.75 ( 34.96%)
Stddev send-128 15.15 ( 0.00%) 22.38 ( -47.66%)
Stddev send-256 13.99 ( 0.00%) 19.14 ( -36.81%)
Stddev send-1024 105.73 ( 0.00%) 67.38 ( 36.27%)
Stddev send-2048 294.57 ( 0.00%) 223.88 ( 24.00%)
Stddev send-3312 302.28 ( 0.00%) 271.74 ( 10.10%)
Stddev send-4096 195.92 ( 0.00%) 121.10 ( 38.19%)
Stddev send-8192 399.71 ( 0.00%) 563.77 ( -41.04%)
Stddev send-16384 1163.47 ( 0.00%) 1103.68 ( 5.14%)
Stddev recv-64 7.30 ( 0.00%) 4.75 ( 34.96%)
Stddev recv-128 15.15 ( 0.00%) 22.38 ( -47.66%)
Stddev recv-256 13.99 ( 0.00%) 19.14 ( -36.81%)
Stddev recv-1024 105.73 ( 0.00%) 67.38 ( 36.27%)
Stddev recv-2048 294.59 ( 0.00%) 223.89 ( 24.00%)
Stddev recv-3312 302.24 ( 0.00%) 271.75 ( 10.09%)
Stddev recv-4096 196.03 ( 0.00%) 121.14 ( 38.20%)
Stddev recv-8192 399.86 ( 0.00%) 563.65 ( -40.96%)
Stddev recv-16384 1163.79 ( 0.00%) 1103.86 ( 5.15%)
The difference in overall performance is marginal but note that most
measurements are less variable. There were similar observations for other
netperf comparisons. hackbench with sockets or threads with processes or
threads showed minor difference with some reduction of migration. tbench
showed only marginal differences that were within the noise. dbench,
regardless of filesystem, showed minor differences all of which are
within noise. Multiple machines, both UMA and NUMA were tested without
any regressions showing up.
The biggest risk with a patch like this is affecting wakeup latencies.
However, the schbench load from Facebook which is very sensitive to wakeup
latency showed a mixed result with mostly improvements in wakeup latency
4.15.0 4.15.0
16rc0 noequal-v1r23
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-1 38.00 ( 0.00%) 38.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-1 49.00 ( 0.00%) 41.00 ( 16.33%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-1 52.00 ( 0.00%) 50.00 ( 3.85%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-1 54.00 ( 0.00%) 51.00 ( 5.56%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-1 63.00 ( 0.00%) 60.00 ( 4.76%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-1 66.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( 7.58%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-1 78.00 ( 0.00%) 65.00 ( 16.67%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-2 38.00 ( 0.00%) 38.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-2 42.00 ( 0.00%) 43.00 ( -2.38%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-2 46.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( -4.35%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-2 49.00 ( 0.00%) 50.00 ( -2.04%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-2 55.00 ( 0.00%) 57.00 ( -3.64%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-2 58.00 ( 0.00%) 60.00 ( -3.45%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-2 65.00 ( 0.00%) 68.00 ( -4.62%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-4 41.00 ( 0.00%) 41.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-4 45.00 ( 0.00%) 46.00 ( -2.22%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-4 50.00 ( 0.00%) 50.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-4 54.00 ( 0.00%) 53.00 ( 1.85%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-4 61.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-4 65.00 ( 0.00%) 64.00 ( 1.54%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-4 76.00 ( 0.00%) 82.00 ( -7.89%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-8 48.00 ( 0.00%) 46.00 ( 4.17%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-8 55.00 ( 0.00%) 54.00 ( 1.82%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-8 60.00 ( 0.00%) 59.00 ( 1.67%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-8 63.00 ( 0.00%) 63.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-8 71.00 ( 0.00%) 69.00 ( 2.82%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-8 74.00 ( 0.00%) 73.00 ( 1.35%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-8 98.00 ( 0.00%) 90.00 ( 8.16%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-16 56.00 ( 0.00%) 55.00 ( 1.79%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-16 68.00 ( 0.00%) 67.00 ( 1.47%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-16 77.00 ( 0.00%) 78.00 ( -1.30%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-16 82.00 ( 0.00%) 84.00 ( -2.44%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-16 90.00 ( 0.00%) 93.00 ( -3.33%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-16 93.00 ( 0.00%) 97.00 ( -4.30%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-16 110.00 ( 0.00%) 110.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-32 68.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 8.82%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-32 90.00 ( 0.00%) 83.00 ( 7.78%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-32 110.00 ( 0.00%) 100.00 ( 9.09%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-32 122.00 ( 0.00%) 111.00 ( 9.02%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-32 145.00 ( 0.00%) 133.00 ( 8.28%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-32 154.00 ( 0.00%) 143.00 ( 7.14%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-32 2316.00 ( 0.00%) 515.00 ( 77.76%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-35 69.00 ( 0.00%) 72.00 ( -4.35%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-35 92.00 ( 0.00%) 95.00 ( -3.26%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-35 111.00 ( 0.00%) 114.00 ( -2.70%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-35 122.00 ( 0.00%) 124.00 ( -1.64%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-35 142.00 ( 0.00%) 144.00 ( -1.41%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-35 150.00 ( 0.00%) 154.00 ( -2.67%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-35 6104.00 ( 0.00%) 5640.00 ( 7.60%)
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index c1091cb023c4..28c8d9c91955 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5747,7 +5747,16 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
prev_eff_load *= 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
prev_eff_load *= capacity_of(this_cpu);
- return this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load ? this_cpu : nr_cpumask_bits;
+ /*
+ * If sync, adjust the weight of prev_eff_load such that if
+ * prev_eff == this_eff that select_idle_sibling will consider
+ * stacking the wakee on top of the waker if no other CPU is
+ * idle.
+ */
+ if (sync)
+ prev_eff_load += 1;
+
+ return this_eff_load < prev_eff_load ? this_cpu : nr_cpumask_bits;
}
static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
--
2.15.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists