linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description

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:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:28:07 +0000
From:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"james.hogan@...tec.com" <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"cmetcalf@...era.com" <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description

On 11/03/14 13:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 12:40:58PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion about using or not a cpu argument for
>>> setting the flags of a level (it was part of the initial proposal
>>> before we start to completely rework the build of sched_domain)
>>> Nevertheless, I see one potential concern that you can have completely
>>> different flags configuration of the same sd level of 2 cpus.
>>
>> Could you elaborate a little bit further regarding the last sentence? Do you
>> think that those completely different flags configuration would make it
>> impossible, that the load-balance code could work at all at this sd?
> 
> So a problem with such an interfaces is that is makes it far too easy to
> generate completely broken domains.

I see the point. What I'm still struggling with is to understand why
this interface is worse then the one where we set-up additional,
adjacent sd levels with new cpu_foo_mask functions plus different static
sd-flags configurations and rely on the sd degenerate functionality in
the core scheduler to fold these levels together to achieve different
per cpu sd flags configurations.

IMHO, exposing struct sched_domain_topology_level bar_topology[] to the
arch is the reason why the core scheduler has to check if the arch
provides a sane sd setup in both cases.

> 
> You can, for two cpus in the same domain provide, different flags; such
> a configuration doesn't make any sense at all.
> 
> Now I see why people would like to have this; but unless we can make it
> robust I'd be very hesitant to go this route.
> 

By making it robust, I guess you mean that the core scheduler has to
check that the provided set-ups are sane, something like the following
code snippet in sd_init()

if (WARN_ONCE(tl->sd_flags & ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS,
		"wrong sd_flags in topology description\n"))
	tl->sd_flags &= ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS;

but for per cpu set-up's.
Obviously, this check has to be in sync with the usage of these flags in
the core scheduler algorithms. This comprises probably that a subset of
these topology sd flags has to be set for all cpus in a sd level whereas
other can be set only for some cpus.

> 
> 


















--
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/