| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBq89SX=7=bXu2za7oXi1Lid_5ara-WputrtE8kCqcZcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:45:26 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity
On 30 August 2014 19:50, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 08/26/2014 04:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
>> it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity.
>>
>> As a sidenote, this will note generate more spurious ilb because we already
>> trig an ilb if there is more than 1 busy cpu. If this cpu is the only one that
>> has a task, we will trig the ilb once for migrating the task.
>>
>> The nohz_kick_needed function has been cleaned up a bit while adding the new
>> test
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 18db43e..60ae1ce 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6049,6 +6049,14 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The group capacity is reduced probably because of activity from other
>> + * sched class or interrupts which use part of the available capacity
>> + */
>> + if ((sg->sgc->capacity_orig * 100) > (sgs->group_capacity *
>> + env->sd->imbalance_pct))
>
> Wouldn't the check on avg_load let us know if we are packing more tasks
> in this group than its capacity ? Isn't that the metric we are more
> interested in?
With this patch, we don't want to pack but we prefer to spread the
task on another CPU than the one which handles the interruption if
latter uses a significant part of the CPU capacity.
>
>> + return true;
>> +
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -6534,13 +6542,23 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>> struct sched_domain *sd = env->sd;
>>
>> if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) {
>> + int src_cpu = env->src_cpu;
>>
>> /*
>> * ASYM_PACKING needs to force migrate tasks from busy but
>> * higher numbered CPUs in order to pack all tasks in the
>> * lowest numbered CPUs.
>> */
>> - if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && env->src_cpu > env->dst_cpu)
>> + if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && src_cpu > env->dst_cpu)
>> + return 1;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If the CPUs share their cache and the src_cpu's capacity is
>> + * reduced because of other sched_class or IRQs, we trig an
>> + * active balance to move the task
>> + */
>> + if ((capacity_orig_of(src_cpu) * 100) > (capacity_of(src_cpu) *
>> + sd->imbalance_pct))
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -6643,6 +6661,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>>
>> schedstat_add(sd, lb_imbalance[idle], env.imbalance);
>>
>> + env.src_cpu = busiest->cpu;
>> +
>> ld_moved = 0;
>> if (busiest->nr_running > 1) {
>> /*
>> @@ -6652,7 +6672,6 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>> * correctly treated as an imbalance.
>> */
>> env.flags |= LBF_ALL_PINNED;
>> - env.src_cpu = busiest->cpu;
>> env.src_rq = busiest;
>> env.loop_max = min(sysctl_sched_nr_migrate, busiest->nr_running);
>>
>> @@ -7359,10 +7378,12 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>>
>> /*
>> * Current heuristic for kicking the idle load balancer in the presence
>> - * of an idle cpu is the system.
>> + * of an idle cpu in the system.
>> * - This rq has more than one task.
>> - * - At any scheduler domain level, this cpu's scheduler group has multiple
>> - * busy cpu's exceeding the group's capacity.
>> + * - This rq has at least one CFS task and the capacity of the CPU is
>> + * significantly reduced because of RT tasks or IRQs.
>> + * - At parent of LLC scheduler domain level, this cpu's scheduler group has
>> + * multiple busy cpu.
>> * - For SD_ASYM_PACKING, if the lower numbered cpu's in the scheduler
>> * domain span are idle.
>> */
>> @@ -7372,9 +7393,10 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> struct sched_group_capacity *sgc;
>> int nr_busy, cpu = rq->cpu;
>> + bool kick = false;
>>
>> if (unlikely(rq->idle_balance))
>> - return 0;
>> + return false;
>>
>> /*
>> * We may be recently in ticked or tickless idle mode. At the first
>> @@ -7388,38 +7410,45 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>> * balancing.
>> */
>> if (likely(!atomic_read(&nohz.nr_cpus)))
>> - return 0;
>> + return false;
>>
>> if (time_before(now, nohz.next_balance))
>> - return 0;
>> + return false;
>>
>> if (rq->nr_running >= 2)
>
> Will this check ^^ not catch those cases which this patch is targeting?
This patch is not about how many tasks are running but if the capacity
of the CPU is reduced because of side activity like interruptions
which are only visible in the capacity value (with IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
config) but not in nr_running.
Even if the capacity is reduced because of RT tasks, nothing ensures
that the RT task will be running when the tick fires
Regards,
Vincent
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
>> - goto need_kick;
>> + return true;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_busy, cpu));
>> -
>> if (sd) {
>> sgc = sd->groups->sgc;
>> nr_busy = atomic_read(&sgc->nr_busy_cpus);
>>
>> - if (nr_busy > 1)
>> - goto need_kick_unlock;
>> + if (nr_busy > 1) {
>> + kick = true;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> }
>>
>> - sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_asym, cpu));
>> + sd = rcu_dereference(rq->sd);
>> + if (sd) {
>> + if ((rq->cfs.h_nr_running >= 1) &&
>> + ((rq->cpu_capacity * sd->imbalance_pct) <
>> + (rq->cpu_capacity_orig * 100))) {
>> + kick = true;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> + }
>>
>> + sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_asym, cpu));
>> if (sd && (cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
>> sched_domain_span(sd)) < cpu))
>> - goto need_kick_unlock;
>> + kick = true;
>>
>> +unlock:
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> -need_kick_unlock:
>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>> -need_kick:
>> - return 1;
>> + return kick;
>> }
>> #else
>> static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle) { }
>>
>
--
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