| 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: <5124654E.8040001@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:55:26 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 10/15] sched: packing transitory tasks in wake/exec
power balancing
On 02/18/2013 04:56 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 04:44 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> Hello, Alex.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:07:37PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> If the waked/execed task is transitory enough, it will has a chance to be
>>> packed into a cpu which is busy but still has time to care it.
>>> For powersaving policy, only the history util < 25% task has chance to
>>> be packed, and for balance policy, only histroy util < 12.5% has chance.
>>> If there is no cpu eligible to handle it, will use a idlest cpu in
>>> leader group.
>>
>> After exec(), task's behavior may be changed, and history util may be
>> changed, too. So, IMHO, exec balancing by history util is not good idea.
>> How do you think about it?
>>
>
> sounds make sense. are there any objections?
>
New patch without exec balance packing:
==============
>From 7ed6c68dbd34e40b70c1b4f2563a5af172e289c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:46:02 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 09/14] sched: packing transitory tasks in wakeup power
balancing
If the waked task is transitory enough, it will has a chance to be
packed into a cpu which is busy but still has time to care it.
For powersaving policy, only the history util < 25% task has chance to
be packed, and for balance policy, only histroy util < 12.5% has chance.
If there is no cpu eligible to handle it, will use a idlest cpu in
leader group.
Morten Rasmussen catch a type bug and suggest using different criteria
for different policy, thanks!
Joonsoo Kim suggests not packing exec task, since the old task utils is
possibly unuseable.
Inspired-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index c2a65f9..24a68af 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3452,19 +3452,72 @@ static inline int get_sd_sched_balance_policy(struct sched_domain *sd,
}
/*
+ * find_leader_cpu - find the busiest but still has enough leisure time cpu
+ * among the cpus in group.
+ */
+static int
+find_leader_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu,
+ int policy)
+{
+ /* percentage of the task's util */
+ unsigned putil = p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum * 100
+ / (p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period + 1);
+
+ struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
+ int nr_running = rq->nr_running > 0 ? rq->nr_running : 1;
+ int vacancy, min_vacancy = INT_MAX, max_util;
+ int leader_cpu = -1;
+ int i;
+
+ if (policy == SCHED_POLICY_POWERSAVING)
+ max_util = FULL_UTIL;
+ else
+ /* maximum allowable util is 60% */
+ max_util = 60;
+
+ /* bias toward local cpu */
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p)) &&
+ max_util - (rq->util * nr_running + (putil << 2)) > 0)
+ return this_cpu;
+
+ /* Traverse only the allowed CPUs */
+ for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_cpus(group), tsk_cpus_allowed(p)) {
+ if (i == this_cpu)
+ continue;
+
+ rq = cpu_rq(i);
+ nr_running = rq->nr_running > 0 ? rq->nr_running : 1;
+
+ /* only light task allowed, like putil < 25% for powersaving */
+ vacancy = max_util - (rq->util * nr_running + (putil << 2));
+
+ if (vacancy > 0 && vacancy < min_vacancy) {
+ min_vacancy = vacancy;
+ leader_cpu = i;
+ }
+ }
+ return leader_cpu;
+}
+
+/*
* If power policy is eligible for this domain, and it has task allowed cpu.
* we will select CPU from this domain.
*/
static int get_cpu_for_power_policy(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu,
- struct task_struct *p, struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
+ struct task_struct *p, struct sd_lb_stats *sds, int wakeup)
{
int policy;
int new_cpu = -1;
policy = get_sd_sched_balance_policy(sd, cpu, p, sds);
- if (policy != SCHED_POLICY_PERFORMANCE && sds->group_leader)
- new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(sds->group_leader, p, cpu);
-
+ if (policy != SCHED_POLICY_PERFORMANCE && sds->group_leader) {
+ if (wakeup)
+ new_cpu = find_leader_cpu(sds->group_leader,
+ p, cpu, policy);
+ /* for fork balancing and a little busy task */
+ if (new_cpu == -1)
+ new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(sds->group_leader, p, cpu);
+ }
return new_cpu;
}
@@ -3515,14 +3568,15 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
if (tmp->flags & sd_flag) {
sd = tmp;
- new_cpu = get_cpu_for_power_policy(sd, cpu, p, &sds);
+ new_cpu = get_cpu_for_power_policy(sd, cpu, p, &sds,
+ sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE);
if (new_cpu != -1)
goto unlock;
}
}
if (affine_sd) {
- new_cpu = get_cpu_for_power_policy(affine_sd, cpu, p, &sds);
+ new_cpu = get_cpu_for_power_policy(affine_sd, cpu, p, &sds, 1);
if (new_cpu != -1)
goto unlock;
--
1.7.12
--
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