linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] sched: rework of sched

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: <20140319124149.GM27632@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:41:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"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>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition


The keyboard deity gave us delete, please apply graciously when replying
to large emails.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:27:12AM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/03/14 17:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > +       if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) {
> > +               sd->imbalance_pct = 110;
> > +               sd->smt_gain = 1178; /* ~15% */
> > +               sd->flags |= arch_sd_sibling_asym_packing();
> > +
> > +       } else if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) {
> > +               sd->imbalance_pct = 117;
> > +               sd->cache_nice_tries = 1;
> > +               sd->busy_idx = 2;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > +       } else if (sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> > +               sd->cache_nice_tries = 2;
> > +               sd->busy_idx = 3;
> > +               sd->idle_idx = 2;
> > +
> > +               sd->flags |= SD_SERIALIZE;
> > +               if (sched_domains_numa_distance[tl->numa_level] > RECLAIM_DISTANCE) {
> > +                       sd->flags &= ~(SD_BALANCE_EXEC |
> > +                                      SD_BALANCE_FORK |
> > +                                      SD_WAKE_AFFINE);
> > +               }
> > +
> > +#endif
> > +       } else {
> > +               sd->flags |= SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> > +               sd->cache_nice_tries = 1;
> > +               sd->busy_idx = 2;
> > +               sd->idle_idx = 1;
> > +       }
> 
> This 'if ... else statement' is still a weak point from the perspective
> of making the code robust:

<snip>

> Is there a way to check that MC and GMC have to have
> SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES set so that this can't happen unnoticed?

So from the core codes perspective those names mean less than nothing.
Its just a string to carry along for us meat-bags. The string isn't even
there when !SCHED_DEBUG.

So from this codes POV you told it it had a domain without PKGSHARE,
that's fine.

That said; yeah the thing isn't the prettiest piece of code. But it has
the big advantage of being the one place where we convert topology into
behaviour.
--
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/