| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:28:18 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 19 March 2014 20:15, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
> On 17/03/14 11:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:28:07PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> [...]
>>> 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.
>>
>> So a domain is principally a group of CPUs with the same properties.
>> However per-cpu domain attributes allows you to specify different domain
>> properties within the one domain mask.
>>
>> That's completely broken.
>>
>> So the way to validate something like that would be:
>>
>> cpu = cpumask_first(tl->mask());
>> flags = tl->flags(cpu);
>>
>> for (;cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, tl->mask()), cpu < nr_cpu_ids;)
>> BUG_ON(tl->flags(cpu) != flags);
>>
>> Or something along those lines.
>
> I tried this idea inside sd_init() on top of Vincent's V3 and it's doing
> its job.
>
>>
>> But for me its far easier to think in the simple one domain one flags
>> scenario. The whole degenerate folding is a very simple optimization
>> simply removing redundant levels.
>>
>
> For me, the approach with the 'int cpu' parameter in the flag function is
> easier to understand. One of the things I had to grasp though was the fact that
> we can only specify SD_SHARE_FOO flags and not SD_NOT_SHARE_FOO per domain.
Looking at you test below, the solution without cpu argument is more
readable for me because you don't have to handle 2 cpu args that can
vary when setting your level. I'm afraid that the flags function will
become quite complex and unreadable with a cpu arg. And this
additional cpu arg doesn't give any benefit.
Vincent
>
> -- >8 --
>
> Subject: [PATCH] sched: check that the sd_flags are consistent in one domain
>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 13 +++++++++----
> include/linux/sched.h | 6 +++---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 71e1fec6d31a..425f133c690d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -275,15 +275,20 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
> cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr);
> }
>
> -static inline const int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> +//static inline const int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> +//{
> +// return SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN;
> +//}
> +
> +static inline const int arm_cpu_core_flags(int cpu)
> {
> - return SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN;
> + return (cpu < 2) ? SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES : SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN;
> }
>
> static struct sched_domain_topology_level arm_topology[] = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
> - { cpu_corepower_mask, cpu_corepower_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(GMC) },
> - { cpu_coregroup_mask, cpu_core_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(MC) },
> +// { cpu_corepower_mask, cpu_corepower_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(GMC) },
> + { cpu_coregroup_mask, arm_cpu_core_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(MC) },
> #endif
> { cpu_cpu_mask, SD_INIT_NAME(DIE) },
> { NULL, },
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 05ce264e5144..45e5aa3d3e80 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -870,14 +870,14 @@ enum cpu_idle_type {
> #define SD_NUMA 0x4000 /* cross-node balancing */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> -static inline const int cpu_smt_flags(void)
> +static inline const int cpu_smt_flags(int cpu)
> {
> return SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES;
> }
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
> -static inline const int cpu_core_flags(void)
> +static inline const int cpu_core_flags(int cpu)
> {
> return SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES;
> }
> @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ void free_sched_domains(cpumask_var_t doms[], unsigned int ndoms);
> bool cpus_share_cache(int this_cpu, int that_cpu);
>
> typedef const struct cpumask *(*sched_domain_mask_f)(int cpu);
> -typedef const int (*sched_domain_flags_f)(void);
> +typedef const int (*sched_domain_flags_f)(int cpu);
>
> #define SDTL_OVERLAP 0x01
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f2ee6c72b13a..6b8ba837977c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5968,7 +5968,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
> sd_weight = cpumask_weight(tl->mask(cpu));
>
> if (tl->sd_flags)
> - sd_flags = (*tl->sd_flags)();
> + sd_flags = (*tl->sd_flags)(cpu);
> if (WARN_ONCE(sd_flags & ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS,
> "wrong sd_flags in topology description\n"))
> sd_flags &= ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS;
> @@ -6044,9 +6044,16 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
> sd->idle_idx = 1;
> }
>
> + if (tl->sd_flags) {
> + int flags = (*tl->sd_flags)(cpumask_first(tl->mask(cpu)));
> +
> + for (;cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, tl->mask(cpu)), cpu < nr_cpu_ids;)
> + BUG_ON((*tl->sd_flags)(cpu) != flags);
> + }
> +
> sd->private = &tl->data;
>
> - return sd;
> + return sd;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
>
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists