| 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: <1276754893.9452.5442.camel@debian>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:08:13 +0800
From: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: yanmin.zhang@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: [patch] Over schedule issue fixing
commit e709715915d69b6a929d77e7652c9c3fea61c317 introduced an imbalance
schedule issue. If we do not use CGROUP, function update_h_load won't
want to update h_load. When the system has a large number of tasks far
more than logical CPU number, the incorrect cfs_rq[cpu]->h_load value
will cause load_balance() to pull too many tasks to local CPU from the
busiest CPU. So the busiest CPU keeps being in a round robin. That will
hurt performance.
The issue was found originally by a scientific calculation workload that
developed by Yanmin. with the commit, the workload performance drops
about 40% from this commit. We can be reproduced by a short program as
following.
# gcc -o sl sched-loop.c -lpthread
# ./sl -n 100 -t 100 &
# cat /proc/sched_debug &> sd1
# grep -A 1 cpu# sd1
sd1:cpu#0, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 2
--
sd1:cpu#1, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 1
--
sd1:cpu#2, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 11
--
sd1:cpu#3, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 12
--
sd1:cpu#4, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#5, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 11
--
sd1:cpu#6, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 10
--
sd1:cpu#7, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 12
--
sd1:cpu#8, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 11
--
sd1:cpu#9, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 12
--
sd1:cpu#10, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 1
--
sd1:cpu#11, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 1
--
sd1:cpu#12, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#13, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 2
--
sd1:cpu#14, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 2
--
sd1:cpu#15, 2533.008 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 1
After apply the fixing patch, cfs_rq get balance.
sd1:cpu#0, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 7
--
sd1:cpu#1, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 7
--
sd1:cpu#2, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#3, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 7
--
sd1:cpu#4, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#5, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 7
--
sd1:cpu#6, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#7, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 7
--
sd1:cpu#8, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#9, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#10, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#11, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#12, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#13, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#14, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
--
sd1:cpu#15, 2533.479 MHz
sd1- .nr_running : 6
---
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
volatile int * exiting;
void *idle_loop(){
volatile int calc01 = 100;
while(*exiting !=1)
calc01++;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
int i, t, c, er=0, num=8;
static char optstr[] = "n:t:";
pthread_t ptid[1024];
while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, optstr)) != EOF)
switch (c) {
case 'n':
num = atoi(optarg);
break;
case 't':
t = atoi(optarg);
break;
case '?':
er = 1;
break;
}
if (er) {
printf("usage: %s %s\n", argv[0], optstr);
exit(1);
}
exiting = malloc(sizeof(int));
*exiting = 0;
for(i=0; i<num ; i++)
pthread_create(&ptid[i], NULL, idle_loop, NULL);
sleep(t);
*exiting = 1;
for (i=0; i<num; i++)
pthread_join(ptid[i], NULL);
exit(0);
}
Reviewed-by: Yanmin zhang <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index f8b8996..a18bf93 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1660,9 +1660,6 @@ static void update_shares(struct sched_domain *sd)
static void update_h_load(long cpu)
{
- if (root_task_group_empty())
- return;
-
walk_tg_tree(tg_load_down, tg_nop, (void *)cpu);
}
--
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