linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] sched: pack small tasks

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:45:56 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk, pjt@...gle.com,
	santosh.shilimkar@...com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
	chander.kashyap@...aro.org, cmetcalf@...era.com,
	tony.luck@...el.com, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	len.brown@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] sched: pack small tasks

On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 22:25 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: 
> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
> >>> when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
> >>> be power gated independently from others.
> >>> On a system that can't power gate a group of CPUs independently, the flag is
> >>> set at all sched_domain level and the buddy is set to -1. This is the default
> >>> behavior.
> >>> On a dual clusters / dual cores system which can power gate each core and
> >>> cluster independently, the buddy configuration will be :
> >>>
> >>>       | Cluster 0   | Cluster 1   |
> >>>       | CPU0 | CPU1 | CPU2 | CPU3 |
> >>> -----------------------------------
> >>> buddy | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU2 |
> >>>
> >>> Small tasks tend to slip out of the periodic load balance so the best place
> >>> to choose to migrate them is during their wake up. The decision is in O(1) as
> >>> we only check again one buddy CPU
> >>
> >> Just have a little worry about the scalability on a big machine, like on
> >> a 4 sockets NUMA machine * 8 cores * HT machine, the buddy cpu in whole
> >> system need care 64 LCPUs. and in your case cpu0 just care 4 LCPU. That
> >> is different on task distribution decision.
> > 
> > The buddy CPU should probably not be the same for all 64 LCPU it
> > depends on where it's worth packing small tasks
> 
> Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
> > 
> > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such system ?
> > and how many sched_domain level have you ?
> 
> it is general X86 domain configuration. with 4 levels,
> sibling/core/cpu/numa.

CPU is a bug that slipped into domain degeneration.  You should have
SIBLING/MC/NUMA (chasing that down is on todo).

-Mike

--
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/