linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: wake up task on prev_cpu if not in SD_WAKE

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: <1399649042.31219.47.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Fri, 09 May 2014 17:24:02 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	mingo@...nel.org, george.mccollister@...il.com,
	ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wake up task on prev_cpu if not in
 SD_WAKE_AFFINE domain with cpu

On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 10:22 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: 
> On 05/09/2014 03:34 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 01:27 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: 
> >> On Thu, 08 May 2014 22:20:25 -0400
> >> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looks like SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not gotten from the sd flags at
> >>> all, but passed into select_task_rq by try_to_wake_up, as a
> >>> hard coded sd_flags argument.
> >>
> >>> Should we do that, if SD_WAKE_BALANCE is not set for any sched domain?
> >>
> >> I answered my own question. The sd_flag SD_WAKE_BALANCE simply means
> >> "this is a wakeup of a previously existing task, please place it
> >> properly".
> >>
> >> However, it appears that the current code will fall back to the large
> >> loop with select_idlest_group and friends, if prev_cpu and cpu are not
> >> part of the same SD_WAKE_AFFINE sched domain. That is a bug...
> > 
> > ttwu(): cpu = select_task_rq(p, p->wake_cpu, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> > 
> > We pass SD_BALANCE_WAKE for a normal wakeup, so sd will only be set if
> > we encounter a domain during traversal where Joe User has told us to do
> > (expensive) wake balancing before we hit a domain shared by waker/wakee.
> > 
> > The user can turn SD_WAKE_AFFINE off beyond socket, and we'll not pull
> > cross node on wakeup.
> > 
> > Or, you could create an override button to say despite SD_WAKE_AFFINE
> > perhaps having been set during domain construction (because of some
> > pseudo-random numbers), don't do that if we have a preferred node, or
> > just make that automatically part of having numa scheduling enabled, and
> > don't bother wasting cycles if preferred && this != preferred.
> 
> That's not the problem.
> 
> The problem is that if we do not do an affine wakeup, due to
> SD_WAKE_AFFINE not being set on a top level domain, we will
> not try to run p on prev_cpu, but we will fall through into
> the loop with find_idlest_group, etc...

If no ->flags & SD_BALANCE_WAKE is encountered during traversal, sd
remains NULL, we fall through to return prev_cpu. 

-Mike



--
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/