| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 16:28:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: commit e9e9250b: sync wakeup bustage when waker is an RT task
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 15:56 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 13:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 09:21 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > sched: RT waker sync wakeup bugfix
> > >
> > > An RT waker's weight is not on the runqueue, but we try to subrtact it anyway
> > > in the sync wakeup case, sending this_load negative. This leads to affine
> > > wakeup failure in cases where it should succeed. This was found while testing
> > > an PREEMPT_RT kernel with lmbench's lat_udp. In a PREEMPT_RT kernel, softirq
> > > threads act as a ~proxy for the !RT buddy. Approximate !PREEMPT_RT sync wakeup
> > > behavior by looking at the buddy instead, and subtracting the maximum task weight
> > > that will not send this_load negative.
> >
> >
> > Does the below work?
>
> Had to make a dinky adjustment for x86-tip-rt33, but yeah, the horrid
> latencies are gone. (hm, skinnier than expected too)
Here's one that should be even skinnier ;-)
I knew I already had an accessor: power_of(), also, I duplicated the
cpu_power variable inside struct rq so we don't have to chase three
pointers to get it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
kernel/sched.c | 24 ++++++------------------
kernel/sched_fair.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -545,6 +545,8 @@ struct rq {
struct root_domain *rd;
struct sched_domain *sd;
+ unsigned long cpu_power;
+
unsigned char idle_at_tick;
/* For active balancing */
int post_schedule;
@@ -1521,24 +1523,9 @@ static unsigned long target_load(int cpu
return max(rq->cpu_load[type-1], total);
}
-static struct sched_group *group_of(int cpu)
-{
- struct sched_domain *sd = rcu_dereference_sched(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd);
-
- if (!sd)
- return NULL;
-
- return sd->groups;
-}
-
static unsigned long power_of(int cpu)
{
- struct sched_group *group = group_of(cpu);
-
- if (!group)
- return SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
-
- return group->cpu_power;
+ return cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_power;
}
static int task_hot(struct task_struct *p, u64 now, struct sched_domain *sd);
@@ -1877,8 +1864,8 @@ static void dec_nr_running(struct rq *rq
static void set_load_weight(struct task_struct *p)
{
if (task_has_rt_policy(p)) {
- p->se.load.weight = prio_to_weight[0] * 2;
- p->se.load.inv_weight = prio_to_wmult[0] >> 1;
+ p->se.load.weight = 0;
+ p->se.load.inv_weight = WMULT_CONST;
return;
}
@@ -7715,6 +7702,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
rq->sd = NULL;
rq->rd = NULL;
+ rq->cpu_power = SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
rq->post_schedule = 0;
rq->active_balance = 0;
rq->next_balance = jiffies;
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1225,7 +1225,6 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_doma
unsigned long this_load, load;
int idx, this_cpu, prev_cpu;
unsigned long tl_per_task;
- unsigned int imbalance;
struct task_group *tg;
unsigned long weight;
int balanced;
@@ -1252,8 +1251,6 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_doma
tg = task_group(p);
weight = p->se.load.weight;
- imbalance = 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
-
/*
* In low-load situations, where prev_cpu is idle and this_cpu is idle
* due to the sync cause above having dropped this_load to 0, we'll
@@ -1263,9 +1260,21 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_doma
* Otherwise check if either cpus are near enough in load to allow this
* task to be woken on this_cpu.
*/
- balanced = !this_load ||
- 100*(this_load + effective_load(tg, this_cpu, weight, weight)) <=
- imbalance*(load + effective_load(tg, prev_cpu, 0, weight));
+ if (this_load) {
+ unsigned long this_eff_load, prev_eff_load;
+
+ this_eff_load = 100;
+ this_eff_load *= power_of(prev_cpu);
+ this_eff_load *= this_load +
+ effective_load(tg, this_cpu, weight, weight);
+
+ prev_eff_load = 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
+ prev_eff_load *= power_of(this_cpu);
+ prev_eff_load *= load + effective_load(tg, prev_cpu, 0, weight);
+
+ balanced = this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load;
+ } else
+ balanced = true;
/*
* If the currently running task will sleep within
@@ -2298,6 +2307,7 @@ static void update_cpu_power(struct sche
if (!power)
power = 1;
+ cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_power = power;
sdg->cpu_power = power;
}
--
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