linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/39] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:39:35 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/39] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:26:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Right, so can we agree that the only case where they diverge is single
> processes that have multiple threads and are bigger than a single node (either
> in memory, cputime or both)?

I think it vastly diverges for processes that are smaller than one
node too. 1) your numa/sched goes blind with an almost arbitrary home
node, 2) your migrate-on-fault will be unable to provide an efficient
and steady async background migration.

> I've asked you several times why you care about that one case so much, but
> without answer.

If this case wasn't important to you, you wouldn't need to introduce
your syscalls.

> I'll grant you that unmodified such processes might do better with your
> stuff, however:
> 
>  - your stuff assumes there is a fair amount of locality to exploit.
> 
>    I'm not seeing how this is true in general, since data partitioning is hard
>    and for those problems where its possible people tend to already do so,
>    yielding natural points to add the syscalls.

Later, I plan to detect this and layout interleaved pages
automatically so you don't even need to manually set MPOL_INTERLEAVE.

>  - your stuff doesn't actually nest, since a guest kernel has no clue as to
>    what constitutes a node (or if there even is such a thing) it will randomly
>    move tasks around on the vcpus, with complete disrespect for whatever host
>    vcpu<->page mappings you set up.
> 
>    guest kernels actively scramble whatever relations you're building by
>    scanning, destroying whatever (temporal) locality you think you might
>    have found.

This shall work fine, running AutoNUMA in guest and host. qemu just
need to create a vtopology for the guest that matches the hardware
topology. Hard binds in the guest will also work great (they create
node locality too).

A paravirt layer could also hint the host on the vcpu switches to
shift the host numa stats across but I didn't thought too much on this
possible paravirt numa-sched optimization, it's not mandatory, just an idea.

> Related to this is that all applications that currently use mbind() and
> sched_setaffinity() are trivial to convert.

Too bad firefox isn't using mbind yet. My primary target are the 99%
of apps out there running on a 24way 2 node system or equivalent and
KVM.

I agree converting qemu to the syscalls would be trivial though.
--
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/