linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destination

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: <554A4A04.2010509@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 May 2015 13:06:12 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, jhladky@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing
 destination

On 05/06/2015 01:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:41:28AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
>> Peter, Mel, I think it may be time to stop waiting for the impedance
>> mismatch between the load balancer and NUMA balancing to be resolved,
>> and try to just avoid the issue in the NUMA balancing code...
> 
> That's a wee bit unfair since we 'all' decided to let the numa thing
> rest for a while. So obviously that issue didn't get resolved.

I'm not blaming anyone, I know I was involved in the decision
to let the NUMA code rest for a while, too.

After a year of just sitting there, this is the only big bug
affecting the NUMA balancing code that I have heard about.

>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index ffeaa4105e48..480e6a35ab35 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1409,6 +1409,30 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> +/* Only move tasks to a NUMA node less busy than the current node. */
>> +static bool numa_has_capacity(struct task_numa_env *env)
>> +{
>> +	struct numa_stats *src = &env->src_stats;
>> +	struct numa_stats *dst = &env->dst_stats;
>> +
>> +	if (src->has_free_capacity && !dst->has_free_capacity)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Only consider a task move if the source has a higher destination
>> +	 * than the destination, corrected for CPU capacity on each node.
>> +	 *
>> +	 *      src->load                dst->load
>> +	 * --------------------- vs ---------------------
>> +	 * src->compute_capacity    dst->compute_capacity
>> +	 */
>> +	if (src->load * dst->compute_capacity >
>> +	    dst->load * src->compute_capacity)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>> +	return false;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
>>  {
>>  	struct task_numa_env env = {
>> @@ -1463,7 +1487,8 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
>>  	update_numa_stats(&env.dst_stats, env.dst_nid);
>>  
>>  	/* Try to find a spot on the preferred nid. */
>> -	task_numa_find_cpu(&env, taskimp, groupimp);
>> +	if (numa_has_capacity(&env))
>> +		task_numa_find_cpu(&env, taskimp, groupimp);
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Look at other nodes in these cases:
>> @@ -1494,7 +1519,8 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
>>  			env.dist = dist;
>>  			env.dst_nid = nid;
>>  			update_numa_stats(&env.dst_stats, env.dst_nid);
>> -			task_numa_find_cpu(&env, taskimp, groupimp);
>> +			if (numa_has_capacity(&env))
>> +				task_numa_find_cpu(&env, taskimp, groupimp);
>>  		}
>>  	}
> 
> Does this not 'duplicate' the logic that we tried for with
> task_numa_compare():balance section? That is where we try to avoid
> making a decision that the regular load-balancer will dislike and undo.
> 
> Alternatively; you can view that as a cpu guard and the proposed as a
> node guard, in which case, should it not live inside
> task_numa_find_cpu()? Instead of guarding all call sites.
> 
> In any case, should we mix a bit of imbalance_pct in there?
> 
> /me goes ponder this a bit further..

Yes, there is some duplication between this code and the
logic in task_numa_compare()

At this point I am not sure how to resolve that; I am
interested in seeing whether this patch solves the issue
reported by Artem and Jirka. If it does, we can think
about cleanups.
--
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/