linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

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: <20160927192107.GB16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:21:07 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

On Fri, 23 Sep, at 04:30:25PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> 
> Does it mean that you can see the perf drop that you mention below
> because load is decayed to 1002 instead of staying to 1024 ?
 
The performance drop comes from the fact that enqueueing/dequeueing a
task with load 1002 during fork() results in a zero runnable_load_avg,
which signals to the load balancer that the CPU is idle, so the next
time we fork() we'll pick the same CPU to enqueue on -- and the cycle
continues.

I mention the performance regression mainly because it's the thing
that led to me discovering this bug, and only a little as support for
applying the patch ;-)

> 1002 mainly comes from period_contrib being set to 1023 during
> init_entity_runnable_average so any delay longer than 1us between
> attach_entity_load_avg and enqueue_entity_load_avg will trig the decay
> of the load from 1024 to 1002
 
Right.

> But this patch doesn't change the behavior of runnable_load_avg, isn't
> it ? it has only an impact on the initial value of p->se.avg.load_avg
> when the task is enqueued.
 
Correct. It isn't guaranteed that runnable_load_avg will be non-zero
with this patch applied, that was just the case for the workload and
the machine I tested.

> > Arguably the real problem is that balancing on fork doesn't look at
> > the blocked contribution of tasks, only the runnable load and it's
> > possible for the two metrics to be wildly different on a relatively
> > idle system.
> 
> fair enough

I did have some patches somewhere to address this. I'll have to dig
them out.