linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle

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: <20150705223144.GG5197@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:31:44 +0800
From:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@...s.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle_balance()

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I'm not against having a policy that sits somewhere in between, we just
> > have to agree it is the right policy and clean up the load-balance code
> > such that the implemented policy is clear.
> 
> Right, for balancing its a tricky question, but mixing them without
> intent is, as you say, a bit of a mess.
> 
> So clearly blocked load doesn't make sense for (new)idle balancing. OTOH
> it does make some sense for the regular periodic balancing, because
> there we really do care mostly about the averages, esp. so when we're
> overloaded -- but there are issues there too.
> 
> Now we can't track them both (or rather we could, but overhead).
> 
> I like Yuyang's load tracking rewrite, but it changes exactly this part,
> and I'm not sure I understand the full ramifications of that yet.
 
Thanks. It would be a pure average policy, which is non-perfect like now,
and certainly needs a mixing like now, but it is worth a starter, because
it is simple and reasaonble, and based on it, the other parts can be simple
and reasonable.

> One way out would be to split the load balancer into 3 distinct regions;
> 
>  1) get a task on every CPU, screw everything else.
>  2) get each CPU fully utilized, still ignoring 'load'
>  3) when everybody is fully utilized, consider load.
> 
> If we make find_busiest_foo() select one of these 3, and make
> calculate_imbalance() invariant to the metric passed in, and have things
> like cpu_load() and task_load() return different, but coherent, numbers
> depending on which region we're in, this almost sounds 'simple'.
> 
> The devil is in the details, and the balancer is a hairy nest of details
> which will make the above non-trivial.
> 
> But for 1) we could simply 'balance' on nr_running, for 2) we can
> 'balance' on runnable_avg and for 3) we'll 'balance' on load_avg (which
> will then include blocked load).
> 
> Let me go play outside for a bit so that it can sink in what kind of
> nonsense my heat addled brain has just sprouted :-)
--
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/