linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted

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:	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:18:37 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	alex.shi@...aro.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, aswin@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost
 whenever newidle balance is attempted

On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 19:14 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:53:37AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > 
> > So I thought that the original rationale (commit 1bd77f2d) behind
> > updating rq->next_balance in idle_balance() is that, if we are going
> > idle (!pulled_task), we want to ensure that the next_balance gets
> > calculated without the busy_factor.
> > 
> > If the rq is busy, then rq->next_balance gets updated based on
> > sd->interval * busy_factor. However, when the rq goes from "busy"
> > to idle, rq->next_balance might still have been calculated under
> > the assumption that the rq is busy. Thus, if we are going idle, we
> > would then properly update next_balance without the busy factor
> > if we update when !pulled_task.
> > 
> 
> Its late here and I'm confused!
> 
> So the for_each_domain() loop calculates a new next_balance based on
> ->balance_interval (which has that busy_factor on, right).
> 
> But if it fails to pull anything, we'll (potentially) iterate the entire
> tree up to the largest domain; and supposedly set next_balanced to the
> largest possible interval.
> 
> So when we go from busy to idle (!pulled_task), we actually set
> ->next_balance to the longest interval. Whereas the commit you
> referenced says it sets it to a shorter while.
> 
> Not seeing it.

So this is the way I understand that code:

In rebalance_domain, next_balance is suppose to be set to the
minimum of all sd->last_balance + interval so that we properly call
into rebalance_domains() if one of the domains is due for a balance.

In the domain traversals:

	if (time_after(next_balance, sd->last_balance + interval))
		next_balance = sd->last_balance + interval;

we update next_balance to a new value if the current next_balance
is after, and we only update next_balance to a smaller value.

In rebalance_domains, we have code:

	interval = sd->balance_interval;
	if (idle != CPU_IDLE)
		interval *= sd->busy_factor;

	...

	if (time_after(next_balance, sd->last_balance + interval)) {
		next_balance = sd->last_balance + interval;

	...

	rq->next_balance = next_balance;

In the CPU_IDLE case, interval would not include the busy factor,
whereas in the !CPU_IDLE case, we multiply the interval by the
sd->busy_factor.

So as an example, if a CPU is not idle and we run this:

rebalance_domain()
	interval = 1 ms;
	if (idle != CPU_IDLE)
		interval *= 64;

	next_balance = sd->last_balance + 64 ms

	rq->next_balance = next_balance

The rq->next_balance is set to a large value since the CPU is not idle.

Then, let's say the CPU then goes idle 1 ms later. The
rq->next_balance can be up to 63 ms later, because we computed
it when the CPU is not idle. Now that we are going idle,
we would have to wait a long time for the next balance.

So I believe that the initial reason why rq->next_balance was
updated in idle_balance is that if the CPU is in the process 
of going idle (!pulled_task in idle_balance()), we can reset the
rq->next_balance based on the interval = 1 ms, as oppose to
having it remain up to 64 ms later (in idle_balance(), interval
doesn't get multiplied by sd->busy_factor).

--
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/