| 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: <51BEB05C.7040802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:44:44 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>
CC: Lei Wen <leiwen@...vell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: add heuristic logic to pick idle peers
On 06/17/2013 01:08 PM, Lei Wen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Michael Wang
> <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Lei
>>
>> On 06/17/2013 10:21 AM, Lei Wen wrote:
>>> nr_busy_cpus in sched_group_power structure cannot present the purpose
>>> for judging below statement:
>>> "this cpu's scheduler group has multiple busy cpu's exceeding
>>> the group's power."
>>>
>>> But only could tell how many cpus is doing their jobs for currently.
>>
>> AFAIK, this nr_busy_cpus presents how many cpus in local group are not
>> idle, the logical here in nohz_kick_needed() is:
>>
>> if domain cpus share resources and at least 2 cpus in
>> local group are not idle, prefer to do balance.
>>
>
> Seems reasonable for me. But this comment is conflicted with current documented
> one. Do we need to modify the comment anyway, as previous says nr_busy>1 is
> "scheduler group has multiple busy cpu;s exceeding the group's power"?
I agree it doesn't make sense (to me), the logical here only make sure
there are at least 2 non-idle cpus in local group, we may need some more
powerful folks to confirm that point.
>
>> And the idea behind is, we catch the timing when there are idle-cpu and
>> busy-group and task-moving may cost low.
>
> Since there is only one task over runqueue now, then why we could need the
> load balance any way?...
IMHO, this is just shot in the darkness... like 'I think in such cases
the chances of requiring a balance will be high', but the problem is,
the logical is already in mainline for some reasons, if we want to say
that is wrong, then we need to collect enough proof...
>
>>
>> Your change will remove this timing for balance, I think you may need
>> some test to prove that this patch will make things better.
>
> I see. Yes, test data is always good. :)
> Do you have any suggestion like using what kind of test program to
> collect this data?
Any workload which require a good balance to check whether the patch
cause damage, any workload which is latency-sensitive to check whether
the patch bring benefit, what about kernbench with enough threads firstly?
Actually all the popular benchmark worth a try, until some improvement
was found, if after all the test, still no benefit located, then the
idea may have to be dropped...
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Thanks,
> Lei
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael Wang
>>
>>>
>>> However, the original purpose to add this logic still looks good.
>>> So we move this kind of logic to find_new_ilb, so that we could pick
>>> out peer from our sharing resource domain whenever possible.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@...vell.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index c61a614..64f9120 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -5368,10 +5368,31 @@ static struct {
>>> unsigned long next_balance; /* in jiffy units */
>>> } nohz ____cacheline_aligned;
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Add the heuristic logic to try waking up idle cpu from
>>> + * those peers who share resources with us, so that the
>>> + * cost would be brought to minimum.
>>> + */
>>> static inline int find_new_ilb(int call_cpu)
>>> {
>>> - int ilb = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
>>> + int ilb = nr_cpu_ids;
>>> + struct sched_domain *sd;
>>> +
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + for_each_domain(call_cpu, sd) {
>>> + /* We loop till sched_domain no longer share resource */
>>> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
>>> + ilb = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> + /* else, we would try to pick the idle cpu from peers first */
>>> + ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
>>> + sched_domain_span(sd));
>>> + if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids)
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>> if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
>>> return ilb;
>>>
>>> @@ -5620,8 +5641,6 @@ end:
>>> * Current heuristic for kicking the idle load balancer in the presence
>>> * of an idle cpu is the system.
>>> * - This rq has more than one task.
>>> - * - At any scheduler domain level, this cpu's scheduler group has multiple
>>> - * busy cpu's exceeding the group's power.
>>> * - For SD_ASYM_PACKING, if the lower numbered cpu's in the scheduler
>>> * domain span are idle.
>>> */
>>> @@ -5659,9 +5678,6 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
>>> struct sched_group_power *sgp = sg->sgp;
>>> int nr_busy = atomic_read(&sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
>>>
>>> - if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES && nr_busy > 1)
>>> - goto need_kick_unlock;
>>> -
>>> if (sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING && nr_busy != sg->group_weight
>>> && (cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
>>> sched_domain_span(sd)) < cpu))
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>
--
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