linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1284393215.2275.383.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:53:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with
 nr_running

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 15:56 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > One option is to simply get rid of that stuff in check_preempt_tick()
> > and instead do a wakeup-preempt check on the leftmost task instead.
> 
> That's what I wanted to boil it down to instead of putting the extra
> preempt check in, but it kills the longish slices of low load.  IIRC,
> when I tried that, it demolished throughput. 

Hrm.. yes it would..

So the reason for all this:

        /*
         * Ensure that a task that missed wakeup preemption by a
         * narrow margin doesn't have to wait for a full slice.
         * This also mitigates buddy induced latencies under load.
         */

Is to avoid tasks getting too far ahead in virtual time due to buddies,
right?

Would something like the below work? Don't actually use delta_exec to
filter, but use wakeup_gran + min_gran on virtual time, (much like Steve
suggested) and then verify using __sched_gran().

Or have I now totally confused myself backwards?

 - delta_exec is walltime, and should thus we compared against a
   weighted unit like slice,
 - delta is a vruntime unit, and is thus weight free, hence we can use
   granularity/unweighted units.


---
 kernel/sched_fair.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++----
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 9b5b4f8..7f418de 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -485,6 +485,16 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
 	return slice;
 }
 
+static u64 __sched_gran(unsigned long nr_running)
+{
+	unsigned long latency = sysctl_sched_latency;
+
+	if (nr_running >= nr_latency)
+		return sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
+
+	return latency / nr_running;
+}
+
 /*
  * We calculate the vruntime slice of a to be inserted task
  *
@@ -865,14 +875,16 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
 	if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
 		return;
 
-	if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
-		return;
-
 	if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) {
 		struct sched_entity *se = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
 		s64 delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
+		u64 wakeup_gran = sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity;
+		u64 min_gran = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
+
+		if (delta < wakeup_gran + min_gran)
+			return;
 
-		if (delta > ideal_runtime)
+		if (delta > wakeup_gran + __sched_gran(cfs_rq->nr_running))
 			resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
 	}
 }

--
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/