linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] sched: Integrating Per-entity-load-tracking with the core scheduler

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: <50897E29.5080509@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:30:09 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, venki@...gle.com, robin.randhawa@....com,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	paul.mckenney@...aro.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Arvind.Chauhan@....com, pjt@...gle.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] sched: Integrating Per-entity-load-tracking
 with the core scheduler

Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for your feedback.

On 10/25/2012 09:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK, so I tried reading a few patches and I'm completely failing.. maybe
> its late and my brain stopped working, but it simply doesn't make any
> sense.
> 
> Most changelogs and comments aren't really helping either. At best they
> mention what you're doing, not why and how. This means I get to
> basically duplicate your entire thought pattern and I might as well do
> the patches myself.
> 
> I also don't see the 'big' picture of what you're doing, you start out
> by some weird avoid short running task movement.. why is that a good
> start?
> 

> I would have expected a series like this to replace rq->cpu_load /
> rq->load with a saner metric and go from there.. instead it looks like
> its going about at things completely backwards. Fixing small details
> instead of the big things.

Let me see if I get what you are saying here right.You want to replace for example cfs_rq->load.weight with a saner metric because it does not consider the run time of the sched entities queued on it,merely their priorities.If this is right,in this patchset I believe cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg would be that right metric because it considers the run time of the sched entities queued on it.

So why didnt I replace? I added cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg as an additional metric instead of replacing the older metric.I let the old metric be as a dead metric and used the newer metric as an alternative.so if this alternate metric does not do us good we have the old metric to fall back on.

> At best they mention what you're doing, not why and how.
So the above explains *what* I am doing.

*How* am i doing it: Everywhere the scheduler needs to make a decision on:

 a.find_busiest_group/find_idlest_group/update_sg_lb_stats:use sum of cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg to decide this instead of sum of cfs_rq->load.weight.

 b.find_busiest_queue/find_idlest_queue: use cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg to decide this instead of cfs_rq->load.weight

 c.move_tasks: use se->avg.load_avg_contrib to decide the weight of of each task instead of se->load.weight as the former reflects the runtime of the sched entity and hence its actual load.

This is what my patches3-13 do.Merely *Replace*.

*Why am I doing it*: Feed the load balancer with a more realistic metric to do load balancing and observe the consequences.

> you start out by some weird avoid short running task movement.
> why is that a good start?

The short running tasks are not really burdening you,they have very little run time,so why move them?
Throughout the concept of load balancing the focus is on *balancing the *existing* load* between the sched groups.But not really evaluating the *absolute load* of any given sched group.

Why is this *the start*? This is like a round of elimination before the actual interview round ;) Try to have only those sched groups as candidates for load balancing that are sufficiently loaded.[Patch1]
This *sufficiently loaded* is decided by the new metric explained in the *How* above.

> I also don't see the 'big' picture of what you're doing

Patch1: is explained above.*End result:Good candidates for lb.*
Patch2: 
         10%
         10%
         10%                100%
        ------             ------
        SCHED_GP1          SCHED_GP2

Before Patch               After Patch
-----------------------------------
SCHED_GP1 load:3072        SCHED_GP1:512
SCHED_GP2 load:1024        SCHED_GP2:1024

SCHED_GP1 is busiest       SCHED_GP2 is busiest:

But Patch2 re-decides between GP1 and GP2 to check if the latency of tasks is getting affected although there is less load on GP1.If yes it is a better *busy * gp.

*End Result: Better candidates for lb*

Rest of the patches: now that we have our busy sched group,let us load balance with the aid of the new metric.
*End Result: Hopefully a more sensible movement of loads*
This is how I build the picture.

Regards
Preeti

--
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/