linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] observe and act upon workload parallelism: PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM (Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched_wait

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, 16 Nov 2009 21:22:14 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Stijn Devriendt <highguy@...il.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] observe and act upon workload parallelism:
 PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM (Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched_wait_block: wait for blocked
 threads)

* Stijn Devriendt <highguy@...il.com> wrote:

> > And then we can use poll() in the thread manager task to observe 
> > PIDs, workloads or full CPUs. The poll() implementation of perf 
> > events is fast and scalable.
> 
> I've had a quick peek at the perf code and how it currently hooks into 
> the scheduler and at first glance it looks like 2 additional context 
> switches are required when using perf. The scheduler will first 
> schedule the idle thread to later find out that the schedule tail woke 
> up another process to run. My initial solution woke up the process 
> before making a scheduling decision. Depending on context switch times 
> the original blocking operation may have been unblocked (especially on 
> SMP); e.g. a blocked user-space mutex which was held shortly. Feel 
> free to correct me here as it was merely a quick peek.

( Btw., the PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM name sucks. A better name would be
  PERF_COUNT_SW_TASKS or PERF_COUNT_SW_THREAD_POOL or so. )

I'd definitely not advocate a 'controller thread' approach: it's an 
unnecessary extra intermediary and it doubles the context switch cost 
and tears cache footprint apart.

We want any such scheme to schedule 'naturally' and optimally: i.e. a 
blocking thread will schedule an available thread - no ifs and when.

The only limit we want is on concurrency - and we can do that by waking 
tasks from the poll() waitqueue if a task blocks - and by requeueing 
woken tasks to the poll() waitqueue if a task wakes (and if the 
concurrency threshold does not allow it to run)..

In a sense the poll() waitqueue becomes a mini-runqueue for 'ready' 
tasks - and the 'number of tasks running' value of the sw event object a 
rq->nr_running value. It does not make the tasks available to the real 
scheduler - but it's a list of tasks that are willing to run.

This would be a perfect and suitable use of poll() concepts i think - 
and well-optimized one as well. It could even be plugged into epoll().

	Ingo
--
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/