| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1261397595.4314.72.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:13:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] sched: Change the nohz ilb logic from pull to push
model
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 17:27 -0800, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com wrote:
> @@ -4507,12 +4507,45 @@ static void active_load_balance(struct rq *busiest_rq, int busiest_cpu)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> +
> +/*
> + * idle load balancing details
> + * - One of the idle CPUs nominates itself as idle load_balancer, while
> + * entering idle.
> + * - With previous logic, this idle load balancer CPU will not go into
> + * tickless mode when it is idle and does the idle load balancing for
> + * all the idle CPUs.
> + * - With new logic, this idle load balancer CPU will also go into
> + * tickless mode when it is idle, just like all other idle CPUs
> + * - When one of the busy CPUs notice that there may be an idle rebalancing
> + * needed, they will kick the idle load balancer, which then does idle
> + * load balancing for all the idle CPUs.
> + * - As idle load balancing looks at the load of all the CPUs, not all busy
> + * CPUs need to do this idle load balancer kick.
> + * - first_pick_cpu is the one of the busy CPUs which will kick
> + * idle load balancer when it has more than one process active. This
> + * eliminates the need for idle load balancing altogether when we have
> + * only one running process in the system (common case).
> + * - If there are more than one busy CPU, idle load balancer may have
> + * to run for active_load_balance to happen (i.e., two busy CPUs are
> + * SMT or core siblings and can run better if they move to different
> + * physical CPUs). So, second_pick_cpu is the second of the busy CPUs
> + * which will kick idle load balancer as soon as it has any load.
> + * - With previous logic, idle load balancer used to run at every tick.
> + * With new logic, idle load balancer tracks the rq->next_balance for all
> + * the idle CPUs and does idle load balancing only when needed.
> + */
Right so like said before, this comments needs a rewrite.
> static struct {
> atomic_t load_balancer;
> - cpumask_var_t cpu_mask;
> - cpumask_var_t ilb_grp_nohz_mask;
> + atomic_t first_pick_cpu;
> + atomic_t second_pick_cpu;
> + cpumask_var_t idle_cpus_mask;
> + cpumask_var_t tmp_nohz_mask;
I don't mind the rename, but tmp_nohz_mask is a really bad name.
> + unsigned long next_balance; /* in jiffy units */
> } nohz ____cacheline_aligned = {
> .load_balancer = ATOMIC_INIT(-1),
> + .first_pick_cpu = ATOMIC_INIT(-1),
> + .second_pick_cpu = ATOMIC_INIT(-1),
> };
>
> int get_nohz_load_balancer(void)
> /*
> + * Kick a CPU to do the nohz balancing, if it is time for it. We pick the
> + * nohz_load_balancer CPU (if there is one) otherwise fallback to any idle
> + * CPU (if there is one).
> +*/
> +static void nohz_balancer_kick(int cpu)
> +{
> + int ilb_cpu;
> +
> + nohz.next_balance++;
> +
> + ilb_cpu = get_nohz_load_balancer();
> + if (ilb_cpu < 0) {
> + ilb_cpu = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> + if (ilb_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (!cpu_rq(ilb_cpu)->nohz_balance_kick) {
> + cpu_rq(ilb_cpu)->nohz_balance_kick = 1;
> + resched_cpu(ilb_cpu);
> + }
> + return;
> +}
So here you simply send an resched-ipi, which requires the below hack in
schedule()?
> @@ -4673,28 +4722,20 @@ int select_nohz_load_balancer(int stop_tick)
> if (atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.load_balancer, cpu, -1) != cpu)
> BUG();
>
> + return;
> }
>
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> + atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.first_pick_cpu, cpu, -1);
> + atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.second_pick_cpu, cpu, -1);
If you were to use nr_cpu_ids here instead of -1, you get more
consistent code in nohz_balancer_kick().
> + ret = atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.first_pick_cpu, -1, cpu);
> + if (ret == -1 || ret == cpu) {
> + atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.second_pick_cpu, cpu, -1);
> + if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> + return 1;
> + } else {
> + ret = atomic_cmpxchg(&nohz.second_pick_cpu, -1, cpu);
> + if (ret == -1 || ret == cpu) {
> + if (rq->nr_running)
> + return 1;
> }
> }
Looked very funny, and took a while to understand why you're doing that,
but yeah, I can't see a better way of doing it either.
The comments confused me more than helped me understand it.
> @@ -5446,8 +5490,19 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
>
> pre_schedule(rq, prev);
>
> - if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
> + if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> + if (rq->nohz_balance_kick) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
> + nohz_idle_balance(cpu, rq);
> + spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
> + } else {
> + idle_balance(cpu, rq);
> + }
> +#else
> idle_balance(cpu, rq);
> +#endif
> + }
And I think this is the wrong kind of trade-off, complicating the
schedule()/newidle path for nohz idle balancing.
nohz_balancer_kick() seems like the perfect place to use something like
send_remote_softirq().
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists