linux-kernel - [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Fix load balancing performance regression in should_we

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]

Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:25:06 -0700
From:	tip-bot for Joonsoo Kim <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, pjt@...gle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, david@...morbit.com
Subject: [tip:sched/urgent] sched:
  Fix load balancing performance regression in should_we_balance()

Commit-ID:  b0cff9d88ce2f3030f73138078c5b1019f17e1cc
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/b0cff9d88ce2f3030f73138078c5b1019f17e1cc
Author:     Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:54:49 +0900
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:20:42 +0200

sched: Fix load balancing performance regression in should_we_balance()

Commit 23f0d20 ("sched: Factor out code to should_we_balance()")
introduces the should_we_balance() function.  This function should
return 1 if this cpu is appropriate for balancing. But the newly
introduced code doesn't do so, it returns 0 instead of 1.

This introduces performance regression, reported by Dave Chinner:

                        v4 filesystem           v5 filesystem
3.11+xfsdev:            220k files/s            225k files/s
3.12-git                180k files/s            185k files/s
3.12-git-revert         245k files/s            247k files/s

You can find more detailed information at:

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/10/1

This patch corrects the return value of should_we_balance()
function as orignally intended.

With this patch, Dave Chinner reports that the regression is gone:

                        v4 filesystem           v5 filesystem
3.11+xfsdev:            220k files/s            225k files/s
3.12-git                180k files/s            185k files/s
3.12-git-revert         245k files/s            247k files/s
3.12-git-fix            249k files/s            248k files/s

Reported-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Tested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130910065448.GA20368@lge.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 7f0a5e6..9b3fe1c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5151,7 +5151,7 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
 	 * First idle cpu or the first cpu(busiest) in this sched group
 	 * is eligible for doing load balancing at this and above domains.
 	 */
-	return balance_cpu != env->dst_cpu;
+	return balance_cpu == env->dst_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/