linux-kernel - [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140326183721.GC24116@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:37:21 +0800
From:	Yuyang du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	morten.rasmussen@....com, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
	len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, alan.cox@...el.com
Subject: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

Hi all,

This is continued after the first RFC about splitting the scheduler. Still
work-in-progress, and call for feedback.

The question addressed here is how load balance should be changed. And I think
the question then goes to how to *reuse* common code as much as possible and
meanwhile be able to serve various objectives.

So these are the basic semantics needed in current load balance:

1. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu push task on that_cpu to [ third_cpu ]

Examples are fork/exec/wakeup. Task is determined by the balance point in
question. And that_cpu is determined by task.

2. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu pull [ task/tasks ] on [ that_cpu ] to
this_cpu

Examples are other idle/periodic/nohz balance, and active_load_balance in
ASYM_PACKING (pull first and then a push).

3. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu kick [ that_cpu/those_cpus ] to do [ what
] balance

Examples are nohz idle balance and active balance.

To make the above more general, we need to abstract more:

1. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu push task on that_cpu to [ third_cpu ] in
[ cpu_mask ]

2. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu [ do | skip ] pull [task/tasks ] on [
that_cpu ] in [ cpu_mask ] to this_cpu

3. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu kick [ that_cpu/those_cpus ] in [ cpu_mask
] to do nohz idle balance

So essentially, we give them choice or restrict the scope for them.

Then instead of an all-in-one load_balance class, we define pull or push
classes:

struct push_class:
int (*which_third_cpu);
struct cpumask * (*which_cpu_mask);

struct pull_class:
int (*skip);
int (*which_that_cpu);
struct task_struct * (*which_task);
struct cpumask* (*which_cpu_mask);

Last but not least, currently we configure domain by flags/parameters, how
about attaching push/pull classes directly to them as struct members? So those
classes are responsible specially for its riding domain's "well-being".

Thanks,
Yuyang
--
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/