linux-kernel - Re: Plumbers: Tweaking scheduler policy micro-conf RFP

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: <CANQmPXhN92i9E8HqxE7pqz=kOwtn5Mz0crW37H6qs+XD420Yuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 10:38:17 +0800
From:	Chen <hi3766691@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mou Chen <hi3766691@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Plumbers: Tweaking scheduler policy micro-conf RFP

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 10:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Ingo, please don't take any of these patches if they are starting to
>> make NUMA scheduling be some arch-specific crap.
>
> I think there's a big mis-understanding here. I fully 100% agree with
> you on that. And this thread in particular isn't about NUMA at all.
>
> This thread is about modifying the arch interface of describing the
> chip.
>
> The current interface is we have 4 fixed topology domains:
>
>  SMT
>  MC
>  BOOK
>  CPU
>
> (and the NUMA stuff comes on top of that and I just removed arch bits
> from that, so lets leave that for now).
>
> The first 3 domains depend on CONFIG_SCHED_{SMT,MC,BOOK} resp. and if an
> architecture select one of those it will have to provide a function
> cpu_{smt,coregroup,book}_mask and optionally put a struct sched_domain
> initializer in their asm/topology.h.
>
> Now I've had quite a few complaints from arch maintainers that the
> sched_domain initializer is a far too unwieldy interface to fill out and
> I quite agree with them.
>
> Now all I've meant to propose in this thread is to replace the entire
> above with a simpler interface.
>
> Instead of the above all I'm asking of doing is providing something
> along the lines of:
>
> struct sched_topology arch_topology[] = {
>        { cpu_smt_mask, ST_SMT },
>        { cpu_llc_mask, ST_CACHE },
>        { cpu_socket_mask, ST_SOCKET },
>        { NULL, },
> };
>
> and that's just about all an arch would need to do.
>
> That said, there are a few new things in ARM land like the big-little
> stuff that have no direct relation to anything on the x86 side. And they
> would very much like to have means of describing their chip topology as
> well.
>
>
> About power aware scheduling, yes its all a big mess and the current
> stuff is horrid and broken.
>
> That said, I do believe we can do better than nothing about it, and I'm
> really not asking for anything perfect -- in fact I'm asking for pretty
> much the same thing you are, something simple and understandable.
>
> The simple pack stuff on a minimum amount of power-gated units instead
> of spreading it out should get some benefit. For this we'd need to know
> at what granularity a chip can power-gate.
>
>> I'm very very serious about this. Try to make the scheduler have a
>> *simple* model that people can actually understand. For example, maybe
>> it can literally be a multi-level balancing thing, where the per-cpu
>> runqueues are grouped into a "shared core resources" balancer that
>> balances within the SMT or shared-L2 domain. And then there's an
>> upper-level balancer (that runs much more seldom) that is written to
>> balances within the socket. And then one that balances within the
>> node/board. And finally one that balances across boards.
>
> That is basically how the scheduler is set up. These are the
> sched_domains.
>
> There is an awful lot of complexity in that code though, and I've been
> trying to clean some of that up but its very slow going.
>
> The purpose of this thread is to both simplify and allow people to more
> easily express what they really care about. For this we need to explore
> the problem space.
>
> I know I haven't replied to all your points, and I suspect many are
> related to annoyances you might have from other threads and I shall
> attempt to answer them later.
>
> I do feel bad that I've managed to annoy you to such a degree though. I
> really would rather have a much simpler load-balancer too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/

Still you are just trying to said that your code is not bloated?
Up to over 500K for a cpu scheduler. Laughing
--
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/