linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/33] autonuma: define the autonuma flags

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121011173442.GS1818@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:34:42 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/33] autonuma: define the autonuma flags

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:46:43PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Should this be a SCHED_FEATURE flag?

I guess it could. It is only used by kernel/sched/numa.c which isn't
even built unless CONFIG_AUTONUMA is set. So it would require a
CONFIG_AUTONUMA in the sched feature flags unless we want to expose
no-operational bits. I'm not sure what the preferred way is.

> Have you ever identified a case where it's a good idea to set that flag?

It's currently set by default but no, I didn't do enough experiments
if it's worth copying or resetting the data.

> A child that closely shared data with its parent is not likely to also
> want to migrate to separate nodes. It just seems unnecessary to have and

Agreed, this is why the task_selected_nid is always inherited by
default (that is the CFS autopilot driver).

The question is if the full statistics also should be inherited across
fork/clone or not. I don't know the answer yet and that's why that
knob exists.

If we retain them, the autonuma_balance may decide to move the
task before a full statistics buildup executed the child.

The current way is to reset the data, and wait the data to buildup in
the child, while we keep CFS on autopilot with task_selected_nid
(which is always inherited). I thought the current one to be a good
tradeoff, but copying all data isn't an horrible idea either.

> impossible to suggest to an administrator how the flag might be used.

Agreed. this in fact is a debug flag only, it won't ever showup to the admin.

#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
SYSFS_ENTRY(sched_load_balance_strict, AUTONUMA_SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE_STRICT_FLAG);
SYSFS_ENTRY(child_inheritance, AUTONUMA_CHILD_INHERITANCE_FLAG);
SYSFS_ENTRY(migrate_allow_first_fault,
	    AUTONUMA_MIGRATE_ALLOW_FIRST_FAULT_FLAG);
#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_VM */

> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If set, this tells knuma_scand to trigger NUMA hinting page
> > +	 * faults at the pmd level instead of the pte level. This
> > +	 * reduces the number of NUMA hinting faults potentially
> > +	 * saving CPU time. It reduces the accuracy of the
> > +	 * task_autonuma statistics (but does not change the accuracy
> > +	 * of the mm_autonuma statistics). This flag can be toggled
> > +	 * through sysfs as runtime.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * This flag does not affect AutoNUMA with transparent
> > +	 * hugepages (THP). With THP the NUMA hinting page faults
> > +	 * always happen at the pmd level, regardless of the setting
> > +	 * of this flag. Note: there is no reduction in accuracy of
> > +	 * task_autonuma statistics with THP.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Default set.
> > +	 */
> > +	AUTONUMA_SCAN_PMD_FLAG,
> 
> This flag and the other flags make sense. Early on we just are not going
> to know what the correct choice is. My gut says that ultimately we'll

Agreed. This is why I left these knobs in, even if I've been asked to
drop them a few times (they were perceived as adding complexity). But
for things we're not sure about, these really helps to benchmark quick
one way or another.

scan_pmd is actually not under DEBUG_VM as it looked a more fundamental thing.

> default to PMD level *but* fall back to PTE level on a per-task basis if
> ping-pong migrations are detected. This will catch ping-pongs on data
> that is not PMD aligned although obviously data that is not page aligned
> will also suffer. Eventually I think this flag will go away but the
> behaviour will be;
> 
> default, AUTONUMA_SCAN_PMD
> if ping-pong, fallback to AUTONUMA_SCAN_PTE
> if ping-ping, AUTONUMA_SCAN_NONE

That would be ideal, good idea indeed.

> so there is a graceful degradation if autonuma is doing the wrong thing.

Makes perfect sense to me if we figure out how to reliably detect when
to make the switch.

thanks!
Andrea
--
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/