linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Avoid unnecessary balancing of asymmetric capacity groups

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: <20180223163806.GE4589@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:38:06 +0000
From:   Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Avoid unnecessary balancing of
 asymmetric capacity groups

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:26:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:33:52PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 04:10:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:51PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * group_similar_cpu_capacity: Returns true if the minimum capacity of the
> > > > + * compared groups differ by less than 12.5%.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline bool
> > > > +group_similar_cpu_capacity(struct sched_group *sg, struct sched_group *ref)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	long diff = sg->sgc->min_capacity - ref->sgc->min_capacity;
> > > > +	long max = max(sg->sgc->min_capacity, ref->sgc->min_capacity);
> > > > +
> > > > +	return abs(diff) < max >> 3;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > This seems a fairly random and dodgy heuristic.
> > 
> > I can't deny that :-)
> > 
> > We need to somehow figure out if we are doing asymmetric cpu capacity
> > balancing or normal SMP balancing. We probably don't care about
> > migrating tasks if the capacities are nearly identical. But how much is
> > 'nearly'?
> > 
> > We could make it strictly equal as long as sgc->min_capacity is based on
> > capacity_orig. If we let things like rt-pressure influence
> > sgc->min_capacity, it might become a mess.
> 
> See, that is the problem, I think it this min_capacity thing is
> influenced by rt-pressure and the like.
> 
> See update_cpu_capacity(), min_capacity is set after we add the RT scale
> factor thingy, and then update_group_capacity() filters the min of the
> whole group. The thing only ever goes down.
> 
> But this means that if a big CPU has a very high IRQ/RT load, its
> capacity will dip below that of a little core and min_capacity for the
> big group as a whole will appear smaller than that of the little group.
> 
> Or am I now terminally confused again?

No, I think you are right, or I'm equally confused.

I don't think we can avoid having some sort of margin to decide when
capacities are significantly different if we want to keep this patch.

Looking more into this, I realized that we do already have similar
comparison and margin in group_smaller_cpu_capacity(). So I'm going to
look using that instead if possible.

The commit message could use some clarification too as we do in fact
already use group_smaller_cpu_capacity() to bail out of pulling big
tasks from big cpus to little. However, there are cases where it is fine
to have sum_nr_running > group_weight on the big side and cases where it
is fine to have the bigs idling while the littles are lightly utilized
which should be addressed by this patch.