linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node

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: <20130628173407.GC1875@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 18:34:08 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:44:27PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Yes, I understand that numa should have more priority over cache.
> > > But the schedstats will not be updated about whether the task was hot or
> > > cold.
> > > 
> > > So lets say the task was cache hot but numa wants it to move, then we
> > > should certainly move it but we should update the schedstats to mention that we
> > > moved a cache hot task.
> > > 
> > > Something akin to this.
> > > 
> > > 	tsk_cache_hot = task_hot(p, env->src_rq->clock_task, env->sd);
> > > 	if (tsk_cache_hot) {
> > > 		if (migrate_improves_locality(p, env) || 
> > > 		 	(env->sd->nr_balance_failed > env->sd->cache_nice_tries)) {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> > > 			schedstat_inc(env->sd, lb_hot_gained[env->idle]);
> > > 			schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_forced_migrations);
> > > #endif
> > > 			return 1;
> > > 		}
> > > 		schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_failed_migrations_hot);
> > > 		return 0;
> > > 	}
> > > 	return 1;
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks. Is this acceptable?
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index b3848e0..c3a153e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4088,8 +4088,13 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
> >  	 * 3) too many balance attempts have failed.
> >  	 */
> > 
> > -	if (migrate_improves_locality(p, env))
> > +	if (migrate_improves_locality(p, env)) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> > +		schedstat_inc(env->sd, lb_hot_gained[env->idle]);
> > +		schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_forced_migrations);
> > +#endif
> >  		return 1;
> > +	}
> > 
> 
> In this case, we account even cache cold threads as _cache hot_ in
> schedstats.
> 
> We need the task_hot() call to determine if task is cache hot or not.
> So the migrate_improves_locality(), I think should be called within the
> tsk_cache_hot check.
> 
> Do you have issues with the above snippet that I posted earlier?
> 

The migrate_improves_locality call had already happened so it cannot be
true after the tsk_cache_hot check is made so I was confused. If the call is
moved within task cache hot then it changes the intent of the patch because
cache hotness then trumps memory locality which is not intended. Memory
locality is expected to trump cache hotness.

How about this?

        tsk_cache_hot = task_hot(p, env->src_rq->clock_task, env->sd);

        if (migrate_improves_locality(p, env)) {
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
                if (tsk_cache_hot) {
                        schedstat_inc(env->sd, lb_hot_gained[env->idle]);
                        schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_forced_migrations);
                }
#endif
                return 1;
        }

        if (!tsk_cache_hot ||
                env->sd->nr_balance_failed > env->sd->cache_nice_tries) {
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
                if (tsk_cache_hot) {
                        schedstat_inc(env->sd, lb_hot_gained[env->idle]);
                        schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_forced_migrations);
                }
#endif
                return 1;
        }

--
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/