linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:12:47 +0800
From:	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake_affine(.sync=true)

On 09/26/2013 11:41 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>> Like the case when we have:
>>
>> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
>> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
>> 	waker	busy		idle	idle
>>
>> If the sync wakeup was on cpu0, we can:
>>
>> 1. choose cpu in core1 sg like we did usually
>>    some overhead but tend to make the load a little balance
>> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
>> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
>> 	idle	busy		wakee	idle
> 
> Reducing latency and increasing throughput when the waker isn't really
> really going to immediately schedule off as the hint implies.  Nice for
> bursty loads and ramp.
> 
> The breakeven point is going up though.  If you don't have nohz
> throttled, you eat tick start/stop overhead, and the menu governor
> recently added yet more overhead, so maybe we should say hell with it.

Exactly, more and more factors to be considered, we say things get
balanced but actually it's not the best choice...

> 
>> 2. choose cpu0 like the patch proposed
>>    no overhead but tend to make the load a little more unbalance
>> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
>> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
>> 	wakee	busy		idle	idle
>>
>> May be we should add a higher scope load balance check in wake_affine(),
>> but that means higher overhead which is just what the patch want to
>> reduce...
> 
> Yeah, more overhead is the last thing we need.
> 
>> What about some discount for sync case inside select_idle_sibling()?
>> For example we consider sync cpu as idle and prefer it more than the others?
> 
> That's what the sync hint does.  Problem is, it's a hint.  If it were
> truth, there would be no point in calling select_idle_sibling().

Just wondering if the hint was wrong in most of the time, then why don't
we remove it...

Otherwise I think we can still utilize it to make some decision tends to
be correct, don't we?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> -Mike
> 
> --
> 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/