linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/5] sched: activate active load balancing in new idle cpus

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:	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:34:41 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>,
	Tim Connors <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/5] sched: activate active load balancing in
	new idle cpus

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2008-11-11 14:47:15]:

> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 00:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > Active load balancing is a process by which migration thread
> > is woken up on the target CPU in order to pull current
> > running task on another package into this newly idle
> > package.
> > 
> > This method is already in use with normal load_balance(),
> > this patch introduces this method to new idle cpus when
> > sched_mc is set to POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP.
> > 
> > This logic provides effective consolidation of short running
> > daemon jobs in a almost idle system
> > 
> > The side effect of this patch may be ping-ponging of tasks
> > if the system is moderately utilised. May need to adjust the
> > iterations before triggering.
> 
> OK, I'm so not getting this patch..
> 
> if normal newly idle balancing fails that means the other runqueue has
> only a single task on it (or some other really stubborn stuff), so then
> you go move that one task that is already running, from one cpu to
> another.
> 
> _why_?
> 
> The only answer I can come up with is that you prefer one cpu's
> idle-ness over another - which makes sense, as you try to get whole
> packages idle.

Your answer is correct.  We want to move that one task from a non-idle
cpu to this cpu that is just going to be idle.  

This is the same method used to move task in load_balance(), I have
extended it for load_balance_newidle() to make the consolidation
faster at sched_mc=2.

> But I'm not seeing where that package logic is hidden..

The package logic comes from find_busiest_group().  If there are no
imbalance, then find_busiest_group() will return NULL.  However when
sched_mc={1,2} then find_busiest_group() will select a group
from which a running task may be pulled to this cpu in order to make
the other package idle.  If there is no opportunity to make a package
idle and if there are no imbalance, then find_busiest_group() will
return NULL and no action will be taken in load_balance_newidle().

Under normal task pull operation due to imbalance, there will be more
than one task in the source run queue and move_tasks() will succeed.
ld_moved will be true and the active balance code will not be
triggered.

If we enter a scenario where we are moving the only running task from
another cpu, then this should have been suggested by
find_busiest_group's sched_mc balance logic and thus moving that task
will potentially freeup the source package.

Thanks for the careful review.

--Vaidy

--
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/