linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:52:31 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, joel.opensrc@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...il.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
 on find_later_rq()

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:25:42AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 22/08/17 17:30, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
> > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>        ^
> This has to come before your SoB.

Thank you, I will.

> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index 0223694..b6b3855 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -1319,12 +1319,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
> >  
> >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
> > + */
> > +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
> > +		    const struct sched_domain *sd,
> > +		    const struct sched_domain *prefer)
> > +{
> > +	const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
> > +	const struct cpumask *ps  = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
> > +			continue;
> > +		if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
> > +			continue;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return cpu;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> >  {
> > -	struct sched_domain *sd;
> > +	struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
> >  	struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
> >  	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >  	int cpu = task_cpu(task);
> > +	int fallback_cpu = -1;
> >  
> >  	/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
> >  	if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> > @@ -1376,15 +1399,35 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> >  				return this_cpu;
> >  			}
> >  
> > -			best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> > -							sched_domain_span(sd));
> >  			/*
> > -			 * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
> > -			 * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> > -			 * choice. Of course, the latest possible cpu is
> > -			 * already under consideration through later_mask.
> > +			 * If a cpu being in later_mask & current sd &
> > +			 * ~prefer sd is valid, that becomes our choice.
> > +			 * Of course, the latest possible cpu is already
> > +			 * under consideration through later_mask.
> >  			 */
> > +			best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
> > +
> >  			if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> > +				/*
> > +				 * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> > +				 * flaged, we have to try to check other
> > +				 * siblings first.
> > +				 */
> > +				if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
> > +					prefer = sd;
> > +
> > +					/*
> > +					 * fallback_cpu should be one
> > +					 * in the closest domain among
> > +					 * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
> > +					 * in case that more than one
> > +					 * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
> > +					 * exist in the hierachy.
> > +					 */
> > +					if (fallback_cpu == -1)
> > +						fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> > +					continue;
> > +				}
> >  				rcu_read_unlock();
> >  				return best_cpu;
> >  			}
> > @@ -1393,6 +1436,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> >  	rcu_read_unlock();
> >  
> >  	/*
> > +	 * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
> > +	 * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback cpu.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
> > +	 *
> > +	 *    LLC [0       -        7]
> > +	 *    SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
> > +	 *         o x  o x  x x  x x
> > +	 *
> > +	 *    where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * A wakeup on cpu0 will exclude cpu1 and choose cpu3, since
> > +	 * cpu1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and cpu3 is not. However,
> > +	 * in this case, we have to choose cpu4 for better work, instead
> 
> ... in this case cpu4 would have been a better choice, since cpu3 is a
> (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.

Thank you, I will.

> > +	 * of cpu3 that is fully loaded.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * We have to do the best if possible, but choose the second
> > +	 * best here since that is too expensive to adopt.
> > +	 */
> 
> I'd also modify this last paragraph with something like:
> 
> "Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current solution is an
> acceptable approximation."

Thank you, I will.

> Apart from these minor points, patch looks ok to me.
> 
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> 
> Best,
> 
> - Juri