linux-kernel - [tip:sched/core] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

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:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:43:30 -0700
From:	tip-bot for Preeti U Murthy <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	jason.low2@...com, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip:sched/core] sched:
  Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

Commit-ID:  d4573c3e1c992668f5dcd57d1c2ced56ae9650b9
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/d4573c3e1c992668f5dcd57d1c2ced56ae9650b9
Author:     Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
AuthorDate: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:32:44 +0530
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:36:09 +0100

sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

When a CPU is kicked to do nohz idle balancing, it wakes up to do load
balancing on itself, followed by load balancing on behalf of idle CPUs.
But it may end up with load after the load balancing attempt on itself.
This aborts nohz idle balancing. As a result several idle CPUs are left
without tasks till such a time that an ILB CPU finds it unfavorable to
pull tasks upon itself. This delays spreading of load across idle CPUs
and worse, clutters only a few CPUs with tasks.

The effect of the above problem was observed on an SMT8 POWER server
with 2 levels of numa domains. Busy loops equal to number of cores were
spawned. Since load balancing on fork/exec is discouraged across numa
domains, all busy loops would start on one of the numa domains. However
it was expected that eventually one busy loop would run per core across
all domains due to nohz idle load balancing. But it was observed that it
took as long as 10 seconds to spread the load across numa domains.

Further investigation showed that this was a consequence of the
following:

 1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle
    load balancing [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be
    potentially idle in this domain.]

 2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before
    initiating nohz idle load balancing.

 3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull
    tasks from its sibling cores to even out load.

 4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle
    load balancing

As a result the opportunities to spread load across numa domains were
lost until such a time that the cores within the first numa domain had
equal number of tasks among themselves.  This is a pretty bad scenario,
since the cores within the first numa domain would have as many as 4
tasks each, while cores in the neighbouring numa domains would all
remain idle.

Fix this, by checking if a CPU was woken up to do nohz idle load
balancing, before it does load balancing upon itself. This way we allow
idle CPUs across the system to do load balancing which results in
quicker spread of load, instead of performing load balancing within the
local sched domain hierarchy of the ILB CPU alone under circumstances
such as above.

Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc: daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Cc: efault@....de
Cc: iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
Cc: morten.rasmussen@....com
Cc: pjt@...gle.com
Cc: riel@...hat.com
Cc: srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150326130014.21532.17158.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 3a798ec..46855d0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -7753,14 +7753,16 @@ static void run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
 	enum cpu_idle_type idle = this_rq->idle_balance ?
 						CPU_IDLE : CPU_NOT_IDLE;

-	rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
-
 	/*
 	 * If this cpu has a pending nohz_balance_kick, then do the
 	 * balancing on behalf of the other idle cpus whose ticks are
-	 * stopped.
+	 * stopped. Do nohz_idle_balance *before* rebalance_domains to
+	 * give the idle cpus a chance to load balance. Else we may
+	 * load balance only within the local sched_domain hierarchy
+	 * and abort nohz_idle_balance altogether if we pull some load.
 	 */
 	nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, idle);
+	rebalance_domains(this_rq, 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/