linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/6] sched, nohz: sched group, domain aware nohz idle load balancing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1322701415.21329.77.camel@sbsiddha-desk.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:03:34 -0800
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
	"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/6] sched, nohz: sched group, domain aware nohz idle
 load balancing

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 01:44 -0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 15:51 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 03:47 -0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:03 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > > +       for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > > > +               struct sched_group *sg = sd->groups;
> > > > +               struct sched_group_power *sgp = sg->sgp;
> > > > +               int nr_busy = atomic_read(&sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
> > > > +
> > > > +               if (nr_busy > 1 && (nr_busy * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE > sgp->power))
> > > > +                       goto need_kick;
> > > 
> > > This looks wrong, its basically always true for a box with HT.
> > 
> > In the presence of two busy HT siblings, we need to do the idle load
> > balance to figure out if the load from the busy core can be migrated to
> > any other idle core/sibling in the platform. And at this point, we
> > already know there are idle cpu's in the platform.
> 
> might have to, this nr_busy doesn't mean its actually busy, just that
> its not nohz, it might very well be idle.

correct. But we can change that.

We can track nr_busy_cpus separately and can be updated when ever the rq
goes into idle and during the first busy tick after idle. Whereas the
nohz.idle_cpus_mask can be updated only during tickless entry.

> > I will modify the above check to:
> > 
> > if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES && nr_busy > 1)
> > 	goto need_kick;
> > 
> > This way, if there is a SMT/MC domain with more than one busy cpu in the
> > group, then we will request for the idle load balancing.
> 
> Potentially 1 more than 1 busy, right? And we do the balancing just in
> case there are indeed busy cpus.
> 
> I think its useful to mention that somewhere near, that this nr_busy
> measure we use is an upper bound on actual busy.

The above should cover this.

I will send the updated version shortly.

thanks,
suresh

--
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/