| 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: <20100330224744.902128512@linux.site>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:41:12 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Ma Ling <ling.ma@...el.com>, Zhang@...ah.com,
Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: [038/156] sched: Fix SCHED_MC regression caused by change in sched cpu_power
2.6.33-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
commit dd5feea14a7de4edbd9f36db1a2db785de91b88d upstream
On platforms like dual socket quad-core platform, the scheduler load
balancer is not detecting the load imbalances in certain scenarios. This
is leading to scenarios like where one socket is completely busy (with
all the 4 cores running with 4 tasks) and leaving another socket
completely idle. This causes performance issues as those 4 tasks share
the memory controller, last-level cache bandwidth etc. Also we won't be
taking advantage of turbo-mode as much as we would like, etc.
Some of the comparisons in the scheduler load balancing code are
comparing the "weighted cpu load that is scaled wrt sched_group's
cpu_power" with the "weighted average load per task that is not scaled
wrt sched_group's cpu_power". While this has probably been broken for a
longer time (for multi socket numa nodes etc), the problem got aggrevated
via this recent change:
|
| commit f93e65c186ab3c05ce2068733ca10e34fd00125e
| Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
| Date: Tue Sep 1 10:34:32 2009 +0200
|
| sched: Restore __cpu_power to a straight sum of power
|
Also with this change, the sched group cpu power alone no longer reflects
the group capacity that is needed to implement MC, MT performance
(default) and power-savings (user-selectable) policies.
We need to use the computed group capacity (sgs.group_capacity, that is
computed using the SD_PREFER_SIBLING logic in update_sd_lb_stats()) to
find out if the group with the max load is above its capacity and how
much load to move etc.
Reported-by: Ma Ling <ling.ma@...el.com>
Initial-Analysis-by: Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
[ -v2: build fix ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1266970432.11588.22.camel@...-t61.sc.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
kernel/sched.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3423,6 +3423,7 @@ struct sd_lb_stats {
unsigned long max_load;
unsigned long busiest_load_per_task;
unsigned long busiest_nr_running;
+ unsigned long busiest_group_capacity;
int group_imb; /* Is there imbalance in this sd */
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
@@ -3742,8 +3743,7 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
unsigned long load, max_cpu_load, min_cpu_load;
int i;
unsigned int balance_cpu = -1, first_idle_cpu = 0;
- unsigned long sum_avg_load_per_task;
- unsigned long avg_load_per_task;
+ unsigned long avg_load_per_task = 0;
if (local_group) {
balance_cpu = group_first_cpu(group);
@@ -3752,7 +3752,6 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
}
/* Tally up the load of all CPUs in the group */
- sum_avg_load_per_task = avg_load_per_task = 0;
max_cpu_load = 0;
min_cpu_load = ~0UL;
@@ -3782,7 +3781,6 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->nr_running;
sgs->sum_weighted_load += weighted_cpuload(i);
- sum_avg_load_per_task += cpu_avg_load_per_task(i);
}
/*
@@ -3800,7 +3798,6 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
/* Adjust by relative CPU power of the group */
sgs->avg_load = (sgs->group_load * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) / group->cpu_power;
-
/*
* Consider the group unbalanced when the imbalance is larger
* than the average weight of two tasks.
@@ -3810,8 +3807,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
* normalized nr_running number somewhere that negates
* the hierarchy?
*/
- avg_load_per_task = (sum_avg_load_per_task * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) /
- group->cpu_power;
+ if (sgs->sum_nr_running)
+ avg_load_per_task = sgs->sum_weighted_load / sgs->sum_nr_running;
if ((max_cpu_load - min_cpu_load) > 2*avg_load_per_task)
sgs->group_imb = 1;
@@ -3880,6 +3877,7 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(st
sds->max_load = sgs.avg_load;
sds->busiest = group;
sds->busiest_nr_running = sgs.sum_nr_running;
+ sds->busiest_group_capacity = sgs.group_capacity;
sds->busiest_load_per_task = sgs.sum_weighted_load;
sds->group_imb = sgs.group_imb;
}
@@ -3902,6 +3900,7 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
{
unsigned long tmp, pwr_now = 0, pwr_move = 0;
unsigned int imbn = 2;
+ unsigned long scaled_busy_load_per_task;
if (sds->this_nr_running) {
sds->this_load_per_task /= sds->this_nr_running;
@@ -3912,8 +3911,12 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
sds->this_load_per_task =
cpu_avg_load_per_task(this_cpu);
- if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + sds->busiest_load_per_task >=
- sds->busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
+ scaled_busy_load_per_task = sds->busiest_load_per_task
+ * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
+ scaled_busy_load_per_task /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
+
+ if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >=
+ (scaled_busy_load_per_task * imbn)) {
*imbalance = sds->busiest_load_per_task;
return;
}
@@ -3964,7 +3967,14 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct sd_lb_stats *sds, int this_cpu,
unsigned long *imbalance)
{
- unsigned long max_pull;
+ unsigned long max_pull, load_above_capacity = ~0UL;
+
+ sds->busiest_load_per_task /= sds->busiest_nr_running;
+ if (sds->group_imb) {
+ sds->busiest_load_per_task =
+ min(sds->busiest_load_per_task, sds->avg_load);
+ }
+
/*
* In the presence of smp nice balancing, certain scenarios can have
* max load less than avg load(as we skip the groups at or below
@@ -3975,9 +3985,29 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(s
return fix_small_imbalance(sds, this_cpu, imbalance);
}
- /* Don't want to pull so many tasks that a group would go idle */
- max_pull = min(sds->max_load - sds->avg_load,
- sds->max_load - sds->busiest_load_per_task);
+ if (!sds->group_imb) {
+ /*
+ * Don't want to pull so many tasks that a group would go idle.
+ */
+ load_above_capacity = (sds->busiest_nr_running -
+ sds->busiest_group_capacity);
+
+ load_above_capacity *= (SCHED_LOAD_SCALE * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
+
+ load_above_capacity /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * We're trying to get all the cpus to the average_load, so we don't
+ * want to push ourselves above the average load, nor do we wish to
+ * reduce the max loaded cpu below the average load. At the same time,
+ * we also don't want to reduce the group load below the group capacity
+ * (so that we can implement power-savings policies etc). Thus we look
+ * for the minimum possible imbalance.
+ * Be careful of negative numbers as they'll appear as very large values
+ * with unsigned longs.
+ */
+ max_pull = min(sds->max_load - sds->avg_load, load_above_capacity);
/* How much load to actually move to equalise the imbalance */
*imbalance = min(max_pull * sds->busiest->cpu_power,
@@ -4045,7 +4075,6 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
* 4) This group is more busy than the avg busieness at this
* sched_domain.
* 5) The imbalance is within the specified limit.
- * 6) Any rebalance would lead to ping-pong
*/
if (balance && !(*balance))
goto ret;
@@ -4064,25 +4093,6 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
if (100 * sds.max_load <= sd->imbalance_pct * sds.this_load)
goto out_balanced;
- sds.busiest_load_per_task /= sds.busiest_nr_running;
- if (sds.group_imb)
- sds.busiest_load_per_task =
- min(sds.busiest_load_per_task, sds.avg_load);
-
- /*
- * We're trying to get all the cpus to the average_load, so we don't
- * want to push ourselves above the average load, nor do we wish to
- * reduce the max loaded cpu below the average load, as either of these
- * actions would just result in more rebalancing later, and ping-pong
- * tasks around. Thus we look for the minimum possible imbalance.
- * Negative imbalances (*we* are more loaded than anyone else) will
- * be counted as no imbalance for these purposes -- we can't fix that
- * by pulling tasks to us. Be careful of negative numbers as they'll
- * appear as very large values with unsigned longs.
- */
- if (sds.max_load <= sds.busiest_load_per_task)
- goto out_balanced;
-
/* Looks like there is an imbalance. Compute it */
calculate_imbalance(&sds, this_cpu, imbalance);
return sds.busiest;
--
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