| 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: <1357891316.2860.6.camel@liguang.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:01:56 +0800
From: li guang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/22] sched: remove domain iterations in
fork/exec/wake
在 2013-01-11五的 10:26 +0530，Preeti U Murthy写道：
> Hi Morten,Alex
>
> On 01/09/2013 11:51 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:37:34AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> Guess the search cpu from bottom to up in domain tree come from
> >> commit 3dbd5342074a1e sched: multilevel sbe sbf, the purpose is
> >> balancing over tasks on all level domains.
> >>
> >> This balancing cost much if there has many domain/groups in a large
> >> system. And force spreading task among different domains may cause
> >> performance issue due to bad locality.
> >>
> >> If we remove this code, we will get quick fork/exec/wake, plus better
> >> balancing among whole system, that also reduce migrations in future
> >> load balancing.
> >>
> >> This patch increases 10+% performance of hackbench on my 4 sockets
> >> NHM and SNB machines.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 +-------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index ecfbf8e..895a3f4 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -3364,15 +3364,9 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> >> goto unlock;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - while (sd) {
> >> + if (sd) {
> >> int load_idx = sd->forkexec_idx;
> >> struct sched_group *group;
> >> - int weight;
> >> -
> >> - if (!(sd->flags & sd_flag)) {
> >> - sd = sd->child;
> >> - continue;
> >> - }
> >>
> >> if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE)
> >> load_idx = sd->wake_idx;
> >> @@ -3382,18 +3376,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> >> goto unlock;
> >>
> >> new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(group, p, cpu);
> >> -
> >> - /* Now try balancing at a lower domain level of new_cpu */
> >> - cpu = new_cpu;
> >> - weight = sd->span_weight;
> >> - sd = NULL;
> >> - for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
> >> - if (weight <= tmp->span_weight)
> >> - break;
> >> - if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> >> - sd = tmp;
> >> - }
> >> - /* while loop will break here if sd == NULL */
> >
> > I agree that this should be a major optimization. I just can't figure
> > out why the existing recursive search for an idle cpu switches to the
> > new cpu near the end and then starts a search for an idle cpu in the new
> > cpu's domain. Is this to handle some exotic sched domain configurations?
> > If so, they probably wouldn't work with your optimizations.
>
> Let me explain my understanding of why the recursive search is the way
> it is.
>
> _________________________ sd0
> | |
> | ___sd1__ ___sd2__ |
> | | | | | |
> | | sgx | | sga | |
> | | sgy | | sgb | |
> | |________| |________| |
> |_________________________|
>
> What the current recursive search is doing is (assuming we start with
> sd0-the top level sched domain whose flags are rightly set). we find
> that sd1 is the idlest group,and a cpux1 in sgx is the idlest cpu.
>
> We could have ideally stopped the search here.But the problem with this
> is that there is a possibility that sgx is more loaded than sgy; meaning
> the cpus in sgx are heavily imbalanced;say there are two cpus cpux1 and
> cpux2 in sgx,where cpux2 is heavily loaded and cpux1 has recently gotten
> idle and load balancing has not come to its rescue yet.According to the
> search above, cpux1 is idle,but is *not the right candidate for
> scheduling forked task,it is the right candidate for relieving the load
> from cpux2* due to cache locality etc.
This corner case may occur after "[PATCH v3 03/22] sched: fix
find_idlest_group mess logical" brought in the local sched_group bias,
and assume balancing runs on cpux2.
ideally, find_idlest_group should find the real idlest(this case: sgy),
then, this patch is reasonable.
>
> Therefore in the next recursive search we go one step inside sd1-the
> chosen idlest group candidate,which also happens to be the *next level
> sched domain for cpux1-the chosen idle cpu*. It then returns sgy as the
> idlest perhaps,if the situation happens to be better than what i have
> described for sgx and an appropriate cpu there is chosen.
>
> So in short a bird's eye view of a large sched domain to choose the cpu
> would be very short sighted,we could end up creating imbalances within
> lower level sched domains.To avoid this the recursive search plays safe
> and chooses the best idle group after viewing the large sched domain in
> detail.
>
> Therefore even i feel that this patch should be implemented after
> thorough tests.
>
>
>
> > Morten
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
> --
> 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/
--
regards!
li guang
--
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