linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: START_NICE feature (temporarily niced forks) (v3)

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: <20100920160249.GB12624@Krystal>
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:02:49 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: START_NICE feature (temporarily niced
	forks) (v3)

* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 16:25 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> 
> > Index: linux-2.6-lttng.git/include/linux/sched.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-lttng.git.orig/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ linux-2.6-lttng.git/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -1132,6 +1132,8 @@ struct sched_entity {
> >  	u64			prev_sum_exec_runtime;
> >  
> >  	u64			nr_migrations;
> > +	u64			fork_nice_timeout;
> > +	unsigned int		fork_nice_penality;
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> >  	struct sched_statistics statistics;
> > Index: linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-lttng.git.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -2421,6 +2421,8 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_str
> >  	p->se.sum_exec_runtime		= 0;
> >  	p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime	= 0;
> >  	p->se.nr_migrations		= 0;
> > +	p->se.fork_nice_timeout		= 0;
> > +	p->se.fork_nice_penality	= 0;
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> >  	memset(&p->se.statistics, 0, sizeof(p->se.statistics));
> > Index: linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-lttng.git.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -433,6 +433,14 @@ calc_delta_fair(unsigned long delta, str
> >  	if (unlikely(se->load.weight != NICE_0_LOAD))
> >  		delta = calc_delta_mine(delta, NICE_0_LOAD, &se->load);
> >  
> > +	if (se->fork_nice_penality) {
> > +		delta <<= se->fork_nice_penality;
> > +		if ((s64)(se->sum_exec_runtime - se->fork_nice_timeout) > 0) {
> > +			se->fork_nice_penality = 0;
> > +			se->fork_nice_timeout = 0;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	return delta;
> >  }
> 
> Something like this ought to live at every place where you use se->load,
> including sched_slice(), possibly wakeup_gran(), although that's more
> heuristic, so you could possibly leave it out there.

Agreed for wakeup_gran(). I'll just remove the duplicate "if
(unlikely(se->load.weight != NICE_0_LOAD))" check.

For sched_slice(), I don't know. sched_vslice() is used to take nice level into
account when placing new tasks. sched_slice() takes only the weight into
account, not the nice level. So given that I want to mimic the nice level
impact, I'm not sure we have to take this into account at the sched_slice level.

Also, I wonder if leaving it out of account_entity_enqueue/dequeue() calls to
add_cfs_task_weight() and inc/dec_cpu_load is OK ? Because it can be a pain to
reequilibrate the cpu and task weights when the timeout occurs.  The temporary
effect of this nice-on-fork is to make the tasks a little lighter, so the weight
is not accurate. But I wonder if we really care that much about it.

> 
> > @@ -832,6 +840,11 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, st
> >  	 */
> >  	if (!(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP))
> >  		se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> > +
> > +	if (se->fork_nice_penality) {
> > +		se->fork_nice_penality = 0;
> > +		se->fork_nice_timeout = 0;
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> 
> So you want to reset this penalty on each de-schedule, not only sleep
> (but also preemptions)?

only sleeps. So I should put this within a 

if (flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP) {
  ...
}

I suppose ?

> 
> > @@ -3544,8 +3557,27 @@ static void task_fork_fair(struct task_s
> >  
> >  	update_curr(cfs_rq);
> >  
> > -	if (curr)
> > +	if (curr) {
> >  		se->vruntime = curr->vruntime;
> > +		if (sched_feat(START_NICE)) {
> > +			if (curr->fork_nice_penality &&
> > +			    (s64)(curr->sum_exec_runtime
> > +				  - curr->fork_nice_timeout) > 0) {
> > +				curr->fork_nice_penality = 0;
> > +				curr->fork_nice_timeout = 0;
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			if (!curr->fork_nice_timeout)
> > +				curr->fork_nice_timeout =
> > +					curr->sum_exec_runtime;
> > +			curr->fork_nice_timeout += sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
> > +			curr->fork_nice_penality = min_t(unsigned int,
> > +							 curr->fork_nice_penality + 1, 8);
> > +			se->fork_nice_timeout = curr->fork_nice_timeout
> > +						- curr->sum_exec_runtime;
> > +			se->fork_nice_penality = curr->fork_nice_penality;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> >  	place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 1);
> >  
> >  	if (sysctl_sched_child_runs_first && curr && entity_before(curr, se)) {
> 
> If you stick than in a separate function you can loose 2 indent levels,
> which would help with readability.

Excellent point, will do! That will let me add more comments into the function
too.

Thanks a lot!

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/