| 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: <20110330210547.5D3CF3E1A05@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...e.hu, efault@....de, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: [PATCH] [108/275] sched: Use group weight, idle cpu metrics to fix imbalances during idle
2.6.35-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
Commit: aae6d3ddd8b90f5b2c8d79a2b914d1706d124193 upstream
Currently we consider a sched domain to be well balanced when the imbalance
is less than the domain's imablance_pct. As the number of cores and threads
are increasing, current values of imbalance_pct (for example 25% for a
NUMA domain) are not enough to detect imbalances like:
a) On a WSM-EP system (two sockets, each having 6 cores and 12 logical threads),
24 cpu-hogging tasks get scheduled as 13 on one socket and 11 on another
socket. Leading to an idle HT cpu.
b) On a hypothetial 2 socket NHM-EX system (each socket having 8 cores and
16 logical threads), 16 cpu-hogging tasks can get scheduled as 9 on one
socket and 7 on another socket. Leaving one core in a socket idle
whereas in another socket we have a core having both its HT siblings busy.
While this issue can be fixed by decreasing the domain's imbalance_pct
(by making it a function of number of logical cpus in the domain), it
can potentially cause more task migrations across sched groups in an
overloaded case.
Fix this by using imbalance_pct only during newly_idle and busy
load balancing. And during idle load balancing, check if there
is an imbalance in number of idle cpu's across the busiest and this
sched_group or if the busiest group has more tasks than its weight that
the idle cpu in this_group can pull.
Reported-by: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <1284760952.2676.11.camel@...iddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
kernel/sched.c | 2 ++
kernel/sched_fair.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.35.y/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2011-03-29 23:03:00.410289673 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.35.y/include/linux/sched.h 2011-03-29 23:03:00.437288981 -0700
@@ -856,6 +856,7 @@
* single CPU.
*/
unsigned int cpu_power;
+ unsigned int group_weight;
/*
* The CPUs this group covers.
Index: linux-2.6.35.y/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c 2011-03-29 23:03:00.417289492 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.35.y/kernel/sched_fair.c 2011-03-29 23:03:00.439288931 -0700
@@ -2036,13 +2036,16 @@
unsigned long this_load_per_task;
unsigned long this_nr_running;
unsigned long this_has_capacity;
+ unsigned int this_idle_cpus;
/* Statistics of the busiest group */
+ unsigned int busiest_idle_cpus;
unsigned long max_load;
unsigned long busiest_load_per_task;
unsigned long busiest_nr_running;
unsigned long busiest_group_capacity;
unsigned long busiest_has_capacity;
+ unsigned int busiest_group_weight;
int group_imb; /* Is there imbalance in this sd */
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
@@ -2064,6 +2067,8 @@
unsigned long sum_nr_running; /* Nr tasks running in the group */
unsigned long sum_weighted_load; /* Weighted load of group's tasks */
unsigned long group_capacity;
+ unsigned long idle_cpus;
+ unsigned long group_weight;
int group_imb; /* Is there an imbalance in the group ? */
int group_has_capacity; /* Is there extra capacity in the group? */
};
@@ -2404,7 +2409,8 @@
sgs->group_load += load;
sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->nr_running;
sgs->sum_weighted_load += weighted_cpuload(i);
-
+ if (idle_cpu(i))
+ sgs->idle_cpus++;
}
/*
@@ -2440,6 +2446,7 @@
sgs->group_imb = 1;
sgs->group_capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(group->cpu_power, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
+ sgs->group_weight = group->group_weight;
if (sgs->group_capacity > sgs->sum_nr_running)
sgs->group_has_capacity = 1;
@@ -2505,13 +2512,16 @@
sds->this_nr_running = sgs.sum_nr_running;
sds->this_load_per_task = sgs.sum_weighted_load;
sds->this_has_capacity = sgs.group_has_capacity;
+ sds->this_idle_cpus = sgs.idle_cpus;
} else if (sgs.avg_load > sds->max_load &&
(sgs.sum_nr_running > sgs.group_capacity ||
sgs.group_imb)) {
sds->max_load = sgs.avg_load;
sds->busiest = group;
sds->busiest_nr_running = sgs.sum_nr_running;
+ sds->busiest_idle_cpus = sgs.idle_cpus;
sds->busiest_group_capacity = sgs.group_capacity;
+ sds->busiest_group_weight = sgs.group_weight;
sds->busiest_load_per_task = sgs.sum_weighted_load;
sds->busiest_has_capacity = sgs.group_has_capacity;
sds->group_imb = sgs.group_imb;
@@ -2736,8 +2746,26 @@
if (sds.this_load >= sds.avg_load)
goto out_balanced;
- if (100 * sds.max_load <= sd->imbalance_pct * sds.this_load)
- goto out_balanced;
+ /*
+ * In the CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, use imbalance_pct to be conservative.
+ * And to check for busy balance use !idle_cpu instead of
+ * CPU_NOT_IDLE. This is because HT siblings will use CPU_NOT_IDLE
+ * even when they are idle.
+ */
+ if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE || !idle_cpu(this_cpu)) {
+ if (100 * sds.max_load <= sd->imbalance_pct * sds.this_load)
+ goto out_balanced;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * This cpu is idle. If the busiest group load doesn't
+ * have more tasks than the number of available cpu's and
+ * there is no imbalance between this and busiest group
+ * wrt to idle cpu's, it is balanced.
+ */
+ if ((sds.this_idle_cpus <= sds.busiest_idle_cpus + 1) &&
+ sds.busiest_nr_running <= sds.busiest_group_weight)
+ goto out_balanced;
+ }
force_balance:
/* Looks like there is an imbalance. Compute it */
Index: linux-2.6.35.y/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/kernel/sched.c 2011-03-29 23:03:00.413289595 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.35.y/kernel/sched.c 2011-03-29 23:54:17.695549641 -0700
@@ -6839,6 +6839,8 @@
if (cpu != group_first_cpu(sd->groups))
return;
+ sd->groups->group_weight = cpumask_weight(sched_group_cpus(sd->groups));
+
child = sd->child;
sd->groups->cpu_power = 0;
--
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