linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task migration

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: <1338823271.28282.75.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:21:11 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	roland@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
 as target of (pinned) task migration

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 20:30 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> [2012-06-04 16:41:35]:
> 
> > But high priority SCHED_OTHER tasks do not hog the CPU, they get their
> > fair share as defined by the user.
> 
> Consider this case. System with 2 cores (each with 2 thread) and 3
> cgroups :
> 
> 	A (1024) -> has 2 tasks (A0, A1)
> 	B (2048) -> has 2 tasks (B0, B1)
> 	C (1024) -> has 1 tasks (C0 - pinned to CPUs 1,2)
> 
> (B0, B1) collectively are eligible to consume 2 full cpus worth of
> bandwidth, (A0, A1) together are eligible to consume 1 full-cpu
> worth of bandwidth and finally C0 is eligible to get 1 full-cpu worth of
> bandwidth. 

The much simpler way to say that is: 5 tasks, two of 512, 3 of 1024.

> Currently C0 is sleeping as a result of which tasks could be spread as:
> 
> 	CPU0 -> A0
> 	CPU1 -> A1
> 
> 	CPU2 -> B0
> 	CPU3 -> B1
> 
> Now C0 wakes up and lands on CPU2 (which was its prev_cpu).
> 
> 	CPU0 -> A0
> 	CPU1 -> A1
> 
> 	CPU2 -> B0, C0
> 	CPU3 -> B1

That's 512, 512, 2048, 1024.

> Ideally CPU1 needs to pull it C0 to itself (while A1 moves to CPU0). Do
> you agree to that? I doubt that happens because of how CPU0 does load
> balance on behalf of itself and CPU1 (and thus fails to pull C0 to its
> core).

Right, 0 can't pull C0 because of cpus_allowed, it can however pull B0,
resulting in: {A0, B0}:1536, {A1}:512, {C0}:1024, {B1}:1024, the next
balance pass of 1 will then pull A0, resulting in: {B0}:1024, {A0,
A1}:1024, {C0}:1024, {B1}:1024

And all is well again.

That is not to say you couldn't contrive a scenario where it would be
needed.. 
--
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/