| 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: <1375170505-5967-6-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:18:20 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 05/10] sched: Extend idle balancing to look for consolidation of tasks
If the cpu is idle even after a regular load balance, then
try to move a task from another node to this node, such that
node locality improves.
While choosing a task to pull, choose a task/address-space from the
currently running set of tasks on this node. Make sure that the chosen
address-space has a numa affinity to the current node. Choose another
node that has the least number of tasks that belong to this address
space.
This change might induce a slight imbalance but there are enough checks
to make sure that the imbalance is within limits. This slight imbalance
that is created can act as a catalyst/opportunity for the other node to
pull its node affine tasks.
TODO: current checks that look at nr_running should be modified to
look at task loads instead.
Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index debb75a..43af8d9 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5609,6 +5609,77 @@ void update_max_interval(void)
max_load_balance_interval = HZ*num_online_cpus()/10;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
+static struct task_struct *
+select_task_to_pull(struct mm_struct *this_mm, int this_cpu, int nid)
+{
+ struct mm_struct *mm;
+ struct rq *rq;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(nid)) {
+ rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+ mm = rq->curr->mm;
+
+ if (mm == this_mm) {
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(rq->curr)))
+ return rq->curr;
+ }
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static int
+select_node_to_pull(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int nr_running, int nid)
+{
+ atomic_t *weights = mm->numa_weights;
+ int least_running, running, other_nr_running, other_running;
+ int least_node = -1;
+ int other_node, cpu;
+
+ least_running = atomic_read(&weights[nid]);
+ running = least_running;
+ for_each_online_node(other_node) {
+ /* our own node? skip */
+ if (other_node == nid)
+ continue;
+
+ other_running = atomic_read(&weights[other_node]);
+ /* no interesting thread in this node */
+ if (other_running == 0)
+ continue;
+
+ /* other_node has more numa affinity? Dont move. */
+ if (other_running > least_running)
+ continue;
+
+ other_nr_running = 0;
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(other_node))
+ other_nr_running += cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running;
+
+ /* other_node is already lightly loaded? */
+ if (nr_running > other_nr_running)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * If the other node has significant proportion of load of
+ * the process in question. Or relatively has more affinity
+ * to this address space than the current node, then dont
+ * move
+ */
+ if (other_nr_running < 2 * other_running)
+ continue;
+
+ if (nr_running * other_running >= other_nr_running * running)
+ continue;
+
+ least_running = other_running;
+ least_node = other_node;
+ }
+ return least_node;
+}
+#endif
+
/*
* It checks each scheduling domain to see if it is due to be balanced,
* and initiates a balancing operation if so.
@@ -5674,6 +5745,91 @@ static void rebalance_domains(int cpu, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
if (!balance)
break;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
+ if (!rq->nr_running) {
+ struct mm_struct *prev_mm, *mm;
+ struct task_struct *p = NULL;
+ unsigned int nr_running = 0;
+ int curr_running, total_running;
+ int other_node, nid, dcpu;
+
+ nid = cpu_to_node(cpu);
+ prev_mm = NULL;
+
+ for_each_cpu(dcpu, cpumask_of_node(nid))
+ nr_running += cpu_rq(dcpu)->nr_running;
+
+ for_each_cpu(dcpu, cpumask_of_node(nid)) {
+ struct rq *this_rq;
+
+ this_rq = cpu_rq(dcpu);
+ mm = this_rq->curr->mm;
+ if (!mm || !mm->numa_weights)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Dont retry if the previous and the current
+ * requests share the same address space
+ */
+ if (mm == prev_mm)
+ continue;
+
+ curr_running = atomic_read(&mm->numa_weights[nid]);
+ total_running = atomic_read(&mm->numa_weights[nr_node_ids]);
+
+ if (curr_running < 2 || total_running < 2)
+ continue;
+
+ prev_mm = mm;
+
+ /* all threads have consolidated */
+ if (curr_running == total_running)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * in-significant proportion of load running on
+ * this node?
+ */
+ if (total_running > curr_running * (nr_node_ids + 1)) {
+ if (nr_running > 2 * curr_running)
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ other_node = select_node_to_pull(mm, nr_running, nid);
+ if (other_node == -1)
+ continue;
+ p = select_task_to_pull(mm, cpu, other_node);
+ if (p)
+ break;
+ }
+ if (p) {
+ struct rq *this_rq;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int active_balance;
+
+ this_rq = task_rq(p);
+ active_balance = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * ->active_balance synchronizes accesses to
+ * ->active_balance_work. Once set, it's cleared
+ * only after active load balance is finished.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&this_rq->lock, flags);
+ if (task_rq(p) == this_rq) {
+ if (!this_rq->active_balance) {
+ this_rq->active_balance = 1;
+ this_rq->push_cpu = cpu;
+ active_balance = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&this_rq->lock, flags);
+
+ if (active_balance)
+ active_load_balance(this_rq);
+ }
+ }
+#endif
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
--
1.7.1
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists