linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Call update_group_power only for local

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]

Message-Id: <1278611133.2834.10.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:45:33 -0700
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Call update_group_power only for local_group

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:12 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, I got side-tracked :/
> 
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:56 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> > My fault. I completely missed that code path, assuming this_cpu in
> > load_balance means this_cpu :(
> 
> Right, but local_group is still valid because that's
> cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, sched_group_cpus(group));
> 
> So in that regard your initial patch was still correct. However, since
> there can be multiple CPUs in the local group, we want to only have one
> do the actual balancing, which is what the !*balance logic is about, so
> by keeping the call site where it is gains that.
> 
> The below proposal avoids calling update_groups_power() too often for:
>  - !local_groups,
>  - multiple cpus in the same group.
> 
> Does this look correct?
> 
> Related to this, Mikey was looking at avoiding the for_each_cpu_and()
> loops by converting update_sg_lb_stats into something similar to
> update_group_power() and have 1 cpu in the group update the statistics
> and propagate upwards by summing groups instead of individual cpus.
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched_fair.c |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 9910e1b..62f34a0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -2433,7 +2433,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
> +	if (local_group)
> +		update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);

if IDLE == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, then all the cpu's in the local group will do
this. Also update_group_power() can be done on only on the local cpu,
i.e., when this_cpu == smp_processor_id() right?

So it should be something like?

diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index a878b53..2d8a74e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -2406,8 +2406,6 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
 		return;
 	}
 
-	update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
-
 	/* Adjust by relative CPU power of the group */
 	sgs->avg_load = (sgs->group_load * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) / group->cpu_power;
 
@@ -2456,6 +2454,9 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
 	init_sd_power_savings_stats(sd, sds, idle);
 	load_idx = get_sd_load_idx(sd, idle);
 
+	if (this_cpu == smp_processor_id())
+		update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
+
 	do {
 		int local_group;
 


--
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/