linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2

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: <20131217092124.GV11295@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:21:25 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB
 range flush v2

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:44:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > > Whatever we did right in v3.4 we want to do in v3.13 as well - or 
> > > at least understand it.
> > 
> > Also agreed. I started a bisection before answering this mail. It 
> > would be cooler and potentially faster to figure it out from direct 
> > analysis but bisection is reliable and less guesswork.
> 
> Trying to guess can potentially last a _lot_ longer than a generic, 
> no-assumptions bisection ...
> 

Indeed. In this case, it would have taken me a while to find the correct
problem because I would consider the affected area to be relatively stable.

> <SNIP>
>
> Does the benchmark execute a fixed amount of transactions per thread? 
> 

Yes.

> That might artificially increase the numeric regression: with more 
> threads it 'magnifies' any unfairness effects because slower threads 
> will become slower, faster threads will become faster, as the thread 
> count increases.
> 
> [ That in itself is somewhat artificial, because real workloads tend 
>   to balance between threads dynamically and don't insist on keeping 
>   the fastest threads idle near the end of a run. It does not
>   invalidate the complaint about the unfairness itself, obviously. ]
> 

I was wrong about fairness. The first bisection found that cache hotness
was a more important factor due to a small mistake made in 3.13-rc1

---8<---
sched: Assign correct scheduling domain to sd_llc

Commit 42eb088e (sched: Avoid NULL dereference on sd_busy) corrected a NULL
dereference on sd_busy but the fix also altered what scheduling domain it
used for sd_llc. One impact of this is that a task selecting a runqueue may
consider idle CPUs that are not cache siblings as candidates for running.
Tasks are then running on CPUs that are not cache hot.

This was found through bisection where ebizzy threads were not seeing equal
performance and it looked like a scheduling fairness issue. This patch
mitigates but does not completely fix the problem on all machines tested
implying there may be an additional bug or a common root cause. Here are
the average range of performance seen by individual ebizzy threads. It
was tested on top of candidate patches related to x86 TLB range flushing.

4-core machine
                    3.13.0-rc3            3.13.0-rc3
                       vanilla            fixsd-v3r3
Mean   1        0.00 (  0.00%)        0.00 (  0.00%)
Mean   2        0.34 (  0.00%)        0.10 ( 70.59%)
Mean   3        1.29 (  0.00%)        0.93 ( 27.91%)
Mean   4        7.08 (  0.00%)        0.77 ( 89.12%)
Mean   5      193.54 (  0.00%)        2.14 ( 98.89%)
Mean   6      151.12 (  0.00%)        2.06 ( 98.64%)
Mean   7      115.38 (  0.00%)        2.04 ( 98.23%)
Mean   8      108.65 (  0.00%)        1.92 ( 98.23%)

8-core machine
Mean   1         0.00 (  0.00%)        0.00 (  0.00%)
Mean   2         0.40 (  0.00%)        0.21 ( 47.50%)
Mean   3        23.73 (  0.00%)        0.89 ( 96.25%)
Mean   4        12.79 (  0.00%)        1.04 ( 91.87%)
Mean   5        13.08 (  0.00%)        2.42 ( 81.50%)
Mean   6        23.21 (  0.00%)       69.46 (-199.27%)
Mean   7        15.85 (  0.00%)      101.72 (-541.77%)
Mean   8       109.37 (  0.00%)       19.13 ( 82.51%)
Mean   12      124.84 (  0.00%)       28.62 ( 77.07%)
Mean   16      113.50 (  0.00%)       24.16 ( 78.71%)

It's eliminated for one machine and reduced for another.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index e85cda2..a848254 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4902,6 +4902,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sched_domain *, sd_asym);
 static void update_top_cache_domain(int cpu)
 {
 	struct sched_domain *sd;
+	struct sched_domain *busy_sd = NULL;
 	int id = cpu;
 	int size = 1;
 
@@ -4909,9 +4910,9 @@ static void update_top_cache_domain(int cpu)
 	if (sd) {
 		id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
 		size = cpumask_weight(sched_domain_span(sd));
-		sd = sd->parent; /* sd_busy */
+		busy_sd = sd->parent; /* sd_busy */
 	}
-	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_busy, cpu), sd);
+	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_busy, cpu), busy_sd);
 
 	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_llc, cpu), sd);
 	per_cpu(sd_llc_size, cpu) = size;
--
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/