linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not migrate on wake_affine

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180212174307.ytpc4r2iy7rakh32@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:43:07 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not migrate on wake_affine_weight if
 weights are equal

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:29:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 02:58:56PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index c1091cb023c4..28c8d9c91955 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5747,7 +5747,16 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> >  		prev_eff_load *= 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
> >  	prev_eff_load *= capacity_of(this_cpu);
> >  
> > -	return this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load ? this_cpu : nr_cpumask_bits;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If sync, adjust the weight of prev_eff_load such that if
> > +	 * prev_eff == this_eff that select_idle_sibling will consider
> > +	 * stacking the wakee on top of the waker if no other CPU is
> > +	 * idle.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (sync)
> > +		prev_eff_load += 1;
> 
> So where we had <= and would consistently favour pulling the task to the
> waking CPU when all else what equal, you now switch to <, such that when
> things are equal we do not pull.
> 
> That makes sense I suppose.
> 

Yep, with the addenum that when CPU load is equal, it does not
necessarily mean they are equal in terms of memory locality. It might
make more sense to use <= if there were more cases where we stacked
tasks on the same CPU but we avoid that as much as possible for good
reasons.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs