| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c9c54485-803e-8d13-1a26-c8c8c80e4108@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:40:36 -0700
From: Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@...cle.com>
To: joelaf <joelaf@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, atish.patra@...cle.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Introduce scaled capacity awareness in
find_idlest_cpu code path
On 09/25/2017 07:51 PM, joelaf wrote:
> Hi Rohit,
>
> Just some comments:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the comments
>
> On 09/25/2017 05:02 PM, Rohit Jain wrote:
>> While looking for idle CPUs for a waking task, we should also account
>> for the delays caused due to the bandwidth reduction by RT/IRQ tasks.
>>
>> This patch does that by trying to find a higher capacity CPU with
>> minimum wake up latency.
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index eca6a57..afb701f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5590,6 +5590,11 @@ static unsigned long capacity_orig_of(int cpu)
>> return cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_capacity_orig;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool full_capacity(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + return (capacity_of(cpu) >= (capacity_orig_of(cpu)*819 >> 10));
> Wouldn't 768 be better for multiplication? gcc converts the expression to shifts and adds then.
While 768 is easier to convert to shifts and adds, 819/1024 gets you
very close to 80% which is what I was trying to achieve.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
>> {
>> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>> @@ -5916,8 +5921,10 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> unsigned long load, min_load = ULONG_MAX;
>> unsigned int min_exit_latency = UINT_MAX;
>> u64 latest_idle_timestamp = 0;
>> + unsigned int backup_cap = 0;
>> int least_loaded_cpu = this_cpu;
>> int shallowest_idle_cpu = -1;
>> + int shallowest_idle_cpu_backup = -1;
>> int i;
>>
>> /* Check if we have any choice: */
>> @@ -5937,7 +5944,12 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> */
>> min_exit_latency = idle->exit_latency;
>> latest_idle_timestamp = rq->idle_stamp;
>> - shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> + if (full_capacity(i)) {
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> + } else if (capacity_of(i) > backup_cap) {
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu_backup = i;
>> + backup_cap = capacity_of(i);
>> + }
> I'm a bit skeptical about this - if the CPU is idle, then is it likely that the capacity of the CPU is reduced due to RT pressure?
What has idleness got to do with RT pressure?
This is an instantaneous view where the scheduler is looking to place
threads. In this case, if we know historically the capacity of the CPU
is reduced (due to RT/IRQ/Thermal Throttling or whatever it may be) we
should avoid that CPU if we have a choice.
> I can see that it can matter, but I am wondering if you have any data for your usecase to show that it does (that is if you didn't consider RT pressure for idle CPUs, are you still seeing a big enough performance improvement to warrant the change?
I tested this with OLTP which has a mix of both IRQ and RT threads.
Also, I tested with micro-benchmarks which have IRQ and fair threads. I
haven't seen what happens just with RT alone. This would come back to the
question: "Why reduce capacities when RT thread is running?", frankly I
don't know the answer, however from a capacity stand point that is taken
into account.
It makes sense to me however I don't know the reasoning.
>> } else if ((!idle || idle->exit_latency == min_exit_latency) &&
>> rq->idle_stamp > latest_idle_timestamp) {
>> /*
>> @@ -5946,7 +5958,12 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> * a warmer cache.
>> */
>> latest_idle_timestamp = rq->idle_stamp;
>> - shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> + if (full_capacity(i)) {
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> + } else if (capacity_of(i) > backup_cap) {
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu_backup = i;
>> + backup_cap = capacity_of(i);
>> + }
>> }
>> } else if (shallowest_idle_cpu == -1) {
>> load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_rq(i));
>> @@ -5957,7 +5974,11 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - return shallowest_idle_cpu != -1 ? shallowest_idle_cpu : least_loaded_cpu;
>> + if (shallowest_idle_cpu != -1)
>> + return shallowest_idle_cpu;
>> +
>> + return (shallowest_idle_cpu_backup != -1 ?
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu_backup : least_loaded_cpu);
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
>>
> I see code duplication here which can be reduced by 7 lines compared to your original patch:
This does look better and I will try to incorporate this.
Thanks,
Rohit
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index c95880e216f6..72fc8d18b251 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5528,6 +5528,7 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> /* Traverse only the allowed CPUs */
> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_span(group), &p->cpus_allowed) {
> if (idle_cpu(i)) {
> + int idle_candidate = -1;
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
> struct cpuidle_state *idle = idle_get_state(rq);
> if (idle && idle->exit_latency < min_exit_latency) {
> @@ -5538,7 +5539,7 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> */
> min_exit_latency = idle->exit_latency;
> latest_idle_timestamp = rq->idle_stamp;
> - shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
> + idle_candidate = i;
> } else if ((!idle || idle->exit_latency == min_exit_latency) &&
> rq->idle_stamp > latest_idle_timestamp) {
> /*
> @@ -5547,7 +5548,16 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> * a warmer cache.
> */
> latest_idle_timestamp = rq->idle_stamp;
> - shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
> + idle_candidate = i;
> + }
> +
> + if (idle_candidate != -1) {
> + if (full_capacity(idle_candidate)) {
> + shallowest_idle_cpu = idle_candidate;
> + } else if (capacity_of(idle_candidate) > backup_cap) {
> + shallowest_idle_cpu_backup = idle_candidate;
> + backup_cap = capacity_of(idle_candidate);
> + }
> }
> } else if (shallowest_idle_cpu == -1) {
> load = weighted_cpuload(i);
> @@ -5558,7 +5568,11 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> }
> }
>
> - return shallowest_idle_cpu != -1 ? shallowest_idle_cpu : least_loaded_cpu;
> + if (shallowest_idle_cpu != -1)
> + return shallowest_idle_cpu;
> +
> + return (shallowest_idle_cpu_backup != -1 ?
> + shallowest_idle_cpu_backup : least_loaded_cpu);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
Powered by blists - more mailing lists