| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <tip-9b523ea8f7dcfebd954200d276cbdc203913ba30@git.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:23:20 -0700
From: tip-bot for Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
tglx@...utronix.de, prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: [tip:sched/core] sched: Improve balance_cpu()
to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task
Commit-ID: 9b523ea8f7dcfebd954200d276cbdc203913ba30
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/9b523ea8f7dcfebd954200d276cbdc203913ba30
Author: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:43:15 +0530
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 21:09:11 +0200
sched: Improve balance_cpu() to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task
Current load balance scheme requires only one cpu in a
sched_group (balance_cpu) to look at other peer sched_groups for
imbalance and pull tasks towards itself from a busy cpu. Tasks
thus pulled by balance_cpu could later get picked up by cpus
that are in the same sched_group as that of balance_cpu.
This scheme however fails to pull tasks that are not allowed to
run on balance_cpu (but are allowed to run on other cpus in its
sched_group). That can affect fairness and in some worst case
scenarios cause starvation.
Consider a two core (2 threads/core) system running tasks as
below:
Core0 Core1
/ \ / \
C0 C1 C2 C3
| | | |
v v v v
F0 T1 F1 [idle]
T2
F0 = SCHED_FIFO task (pinned to C0)
F1 = SCHED_FIFO task (pinned to C2)
T1 = SCHED_OTHER task (pinned to C1)
T2 = SCHED_OTHER task (pinned to C1 and C2)
F1 could become a cpu hog, which will starve T2 unless C1 pulls
it. Between C0 and C1 however, C0 is required to look for
imbalance between cores, which will fail to pull T2 towards
Core0. T2 will starve eternally in this case. The same scenario
can arise in presence of non-rt tasks as well (say we replace F1
with high irq load).
We tackle this problem by having balance_cpu move pinned tasks
to one of its sibling cpus (where they can run). We first check
if load balance goal can be met by ignoring pinned tasks,
failing which we retry move_tasks() with a new env->dst_cpu.
This patch modifies load balance semantics on who can move load
towards a given cpu in a given sched_domain.
Before this patch, a given_cpu or a ilb_cpu acting on behalf of
an idle given_cpu is responsible for moving load to given_cpu.
With this patch applied, balance_cpu can in addition decide on
moving some load to a given_cpu.
There is a remote possibility that excess load could get moved
as a result of this (balance_cpu and given_cpu/ilb_cpu deciding
*independently* and at *same* time to move some load to a
given_cpu). However we should see less of such conflicting
decisions in practice and moreover subsequent load balance
cycles should correct the excess load moved to given_cpu.
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4FE06CDB.2060605@linux.vnet.ibm.com
[ minor edits ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3f94840..77f1ed7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3084,6 +3084,7 @@ static unsigned long __read_mostly max_load_balance_interval = HZ/10;
#define LBF_ALL_PINNED 0x01
#define LBF_NEED_BREAK 0x02
+#define LBF_SOME_PINNED 0x04
struct lb_env {
struct sched_domain *sd;
@@ -3094,6 +3095,8 @@ struct lb_env {
int dst_cpu;
struct rq *dst_rq;
+ struct cpumask *dst_grpmask;
+ int new_dst_cpu;
enum cpu_idle_type idle;
long imbalance;
@@ -3184,9 +3187,31 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
* 3) are cache-hot on their current CPU.
*/
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(env->dst_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p))) {
+ int new_dst_cpu;
+
schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_failed_migrations_affine);
+
+ /*
+ * Remember if this task can be migrated to any other cpu in
+ * our sched_group. We may want to revisit it if we couldn't
+ * meet load balance goals by pulling other tasks on src_cpu.
+ *
+ * Also avoid computing new_dst_cpu if we have already computed
+ * one in current iteration.
+ */
+ if (!env->dst_grpmask || (env->flags & LBF_SOME_PINNED))
+ return 0;
+
+ new_dst_cpu = cpumask_first_and(env->dst_grpmask,
+ tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
+ if (new_dst_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ env->flags |= LBF_SOME_PINNED;
+ env->new_dst_cpu = new_dst_cpu;
+ }
return 0;
}
+
+ /* Record that we found atleast one task that could run on dst_cpu */
env->flags &= ~LBF_ALL_PINNED;
if (task_running(env->src_rq, p)) {
@@ -4417,7 +4442,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
struct sched_domain *sd, enum cpu_idle_type idle,
int *balance)
{
- int ld_moved, active_balance = 0;
+ int ld_moved, cur_ld_moved, active_balance = 0;
+ int lb_iterations, max_lb_iterations;
struct sched_group *group;
struct rq *busiest;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -4427,12 +4453,14 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
.sd = sd,
.dst_cpu = this_cpu,
.dst_rq = this_rq,
+ .dst_grpmask = sched_group_cpus(sd->groups),
.idle = idle,
.loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break,
.find_busiest_queue = find_busiest_queue,
};
cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);
+ max_lb_iterations = cpumask_weight(env.dst_grpmask);
schedstat_inc(sd, lb_count[idle]);
@@ -4460,6 +4488,7 @@ redo:
schedstat_add(sd, lb_imbalance[idle], env.imbalance);
ld_moved = 0;
+ lb_iterations = 1;
if (busiest->nr_running > 1) {
/*
* Attempt to move tasks. If find_busiest_group has found
@@ -4479,7 +4508,13 @@ more_balance:
double_rq_lock(this_rq, busiest);
if (!env.loop)
update_h_load(env.src_cpu);
- ld_moved += move_tasks(&env);
+
+ /*
+ * cur_ld_moved - load moved in current iteration
+ * ld_moved - cumulative load moved across iterations
+ */
+ cur_ld_moved = move_tasks(&env);
+ ld_moved += cur_ld_moved;
double_rq_unlock(this_rq, busiest);
local_irq_restore(flags);
@@ -4491,8 +4526,43 @@ more_balance:
/*
* some other cpu did the load balance for us.
*/
- if (ld_moved && this_cpu != smp_processor_id())
- resched_cpu(this_cpu);
+ if (cur_ld_moved && env.dst_cpu != smp_processor_id())
+ resched_cpu(env.dst_cpu);
+
+ /*
+ * Revisit (affine) tasks on src_cpu that couldn't be moved to
+ * us and move them to an alternate dst_cpu in our sched_group
+ * where they can run. The upper limit on how many times we
+ * iterate on same src_cpu is dependent on number of cpus in our
+ * sched_group.
+ *
+ * This changes load balance semantics a bit on who can move
+ * load to a given_cpu. In addition to the given_cpu itself
+ * (or a ilb_cpu acting on its behalf where given_cpu is
+ * nohz-idle), we now have balance_cpu in a position to move
+ * load to given_cpu. In rare situations, this may cause
+ * conflicts (balance_cpu and given_cpu/ilb_cpu deciding
+ * _independently_ and at _same_ time to move some load to
+ * given_cpu) causing exceess load to be moved to given_cpu.
+ * This however should not happen so much in practice and
+ * moreover subsequent load balance cycles should correct the
+ * excess load moved.
+ */
+ if ((env.flags & LBF_SOME_PINNED) && env.imbalance > 0 &&
+ lb_iterations++ < max_lb_iterations) {
+
+ this_rq = cpu_rq(env.new_dst_cpu);
+ env.dst_rq = this_rq;
+ env.dst_cpu = env.new_dst_cpu;
+ env.flags &= ~LBF_SOME_PINNED;
+ env.loop = 0;
+ env.loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break;
+ /*
+ * Go back to "more_balance" rather than "redo" since we
+ * need to continue with same src_cpu.
+ */
+ goto more_balance;
+ }
/* All tasks on this runqueue were pinned by CPU affinity */
if (unlikely(env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED)) {
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists