linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 3/7] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081215121406.GQ5457@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:44:06 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...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>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 3/7] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu

* Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2008-12-15 12:10:56]:

> * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2008-12-11 23:12:57]:
> 
> > When the system utilisation is low and more cpus are idle,
> > then the process waking up from sleep should prefer to
> > wakeup an idle cpu from semi-idle cpu package (multi core
> > package) rather than a completely idle cpu package which
> > would waste power.
> > 
> > Use the sched_mc balance logic in find_busiest_group() to
> > nominate a preferred wakeup cpu.
> > 
> > This info can be sored in appropriate sched_domain, but
> > updating this info in all copies of sched_domain is not
> > practical.  Hence this information is stored in root_domain
> > struct which is one copy per partitioned sched domain.
> > The root_domain can be accessed from each cpu's runqueue
> > and there is one copy per partitioned sched domain.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  kernel/sched.c |   12 ++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> > index 6bea99b..0918677 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -493,6 +493,14 @@ struct root_domain {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >  	struct cpupri cpupri;
> >  #endif
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Preferred wake up cpu nominated by sched_mc balance that will be
> > +	 * used when most cpus are idle in the system indicating overall very
> > +	 * low system utilisation. Triggered at POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP(2)
> 
> Is the root domain good enough?
> 
> What is POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP(2), is it sched_mc == 2?

Yes

> 
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned int sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
> > +#endif
> >  };
> > 
> >  /*
> > @@ -3407,6 +3415,10 @@ out_balanced:
> > 
> >  	if (this == group_leader && group_leader != group_min) {
> >  		*imbalance = min_load_per_task;
> > +		if (sched_mc_power_savings >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP) {
> 
> OK, it is :) (for the question above). Where do we utilize the set
> sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu?

We use this nominated cpu in wake_idle() in sched_fair.c

> > +			cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu =
> > +					first_cpu(group_leader->cpumask);
> 
> Everytime we balance, we keep replacing rd->sched_mc_preferred_wake_up
> with group_lead->cpumask? My big concern is that we do this without

The first_cpu in the group_leader's mask.  The nomination is a cpu
number.

> checking if the group_leader has sufficient capacity (after it will
> pull in tasks since we made the checks for nr_running and capacity).

You are correct.  But if we are running find_busiest_group(), then we
are in load_balance() code on this cpu and exit from this function
should recommend a pull task.  The cpu evaluating the load on
group_leader will be the nominated load_balancer cpu for this
group/domain.  Nobody would have pushed task to our group while we are
at this function.  However interrupts and other preemptable corner
cases may change the load with RT tasks etc.  Generally the
computed load on _this_ group (group_leader) will not change.  

What you are pointing out is valid for other group loads like
group_min etc.

--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/