linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate

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: <4FDEFD9A.60703@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:06:18 +0800
From:	Charles Wang <muming.wq@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>,
	含黛 <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 01:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Wednesday I ended up with something like the below.. but I haven't
> gotten round to trying Doug's latest testing method, nor did I really
> read the email I'm now replying to.
> 
> I think it does something like what Wang described... every time I try
> and write comments related to why it does this I get stuck though. 
> 
> I ran out of time again for this week, I'll try and prod at it a little
> more next week (and try and catch up with the thread).
> 
> In the meantime I thought I might as well post this.. who knows somebody
> might be bored over the weekend, it might actually work, or not :-)
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c |   77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index ca07ee0..4101a0e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2198,26 +2198,49 @@ calc_load(unsigned long load, unsigned long exp, unsigned long active)
>   *
>   * When making the ILB scale, we should try to pull this in as well.
>   */
> -static atomic_long_t calc_load_tasks_idle;
> +static atomic_long_t calc_load_idle[2];
> +static int calc_load_idx;
> +
> +static inline int calc_load_write_idx(void)
> +{
> +	int idx = calc_load_idx;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * See calc_global_nohz(), if we observe the new index, we also
> +	 * need to observe the new update time.
> +	 */
> +	smp_rmb();
> +
> +	if (!time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update))
> +		idx++;
> +
> +	return idx & 1;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int calc_load_read_idx(void)
> +{
> +	return calc_load_idx & 1;
> +}
>  
>  void calc_load_account_idle(struct rq *this_rq)
>  {
>  	long delta;
> +	int idx;
>  
>  	delta = calc_load_fold_active(this_rq);
> -	if (delta)
> -		atomic_long_add(delta, &calc_load_tasks_idle);
> +	if (delta) {
> +		idx = calc_load_write_idx();
> +		atomic_long_add(delta, &calc_load_idle[idx]);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static long calc_load_fold_idle(void)
>  {
> +	int idx = calc_load_read_idx();
>  	long delta = 0;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Its got a race, we don't care...
> -	 */
> -	if (atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks_idle))
> -		delta = atomic_long_xchg(&calc_load_tasks_idle, 0);
> +	if (atomic_long_read(&calc_load_idle[idx]))
> +		delta = atomic_long_xchg(&calc_load_idle[idx], 0);
>  
>  	return delta;
>  }
> @@ -2313,26 +2336,32 @@ static void calc_global_nohz(void)
>  	if (delta)
>  		atomic_long_add(delta, &calc_load_tasks);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * It could be the one fold was all it took, we done!
> -	 */
> -	if (time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update + 10))
> -		return;
> +	if (!time_before(jiffies, calc_load_update + 10)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Catch-up, fold however many we are behind still
> +		 */
> +		delta = jiffies - calc_load_update - 10;
> +		n = 1 + (delta / LOAD_FREQ);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Catch-up, fold however many we are behind still
> -	 */
> -	delta = jiffies - calc_load_update - 10;
> -	n = 1 + (delta / LOAD_FREQ);
> +		active = atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks);
> +		active = active > 0 ? active * FIXED_1 : 0;
>  
> -	active = atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks);
> -	active = active > 0 ? active * FIXED_1 : 0;
> +		avenrun[0] = calc_load_n(avenrun[0], EXP_1, active, n);
> +		avenrun[1] = calc_load_n(avenrun[1], EXP_5, active, n);
> +		avenrun[2] = calc_load_n(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active, n);
>  
> -	avenrun[0] = calc_load_n(avenrun[0], EXP_1, active, n);
> -	avenrun[1] = calc_load_n(avenrun[1], EXP_5, active, n);
> -	avenrun[2] = calc_load_n(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active, n);
> +		calc_load_update += n * LOAD_FREQ;
> +	}
>  
> -	calc_load_update += n * LOAD_FREQ;
> +	/*
> +	 * Flip the idle index...
> +	 *
> +	 * Make sure we first write the new time then flip the index, so that
> +	 * calc_load_write_idx() will see the new time when it reads the new
> +	 * index, this avoids a double flip messing things up.
> +	 */
> +	smp_wmb();
> +	calc_load_idx++;
>  }
>  #else
>  void calc_load_account_idle(struct rq *this_rq)
> 

I tried to identify the start-line precisely, and made the implemention
little more complicated. Using calc_load_update as start-line will cause
it not that accurate, but may work, and keep simple. I will test this on
my environments, and try to port the next patch on this.
--
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/