linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched.load

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: <20180525094050.GB30654@e110439-lin>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 10:40:50 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched.load_balance flag to v2

On 24-May 11:22, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 11:16 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 24/05/18 11:09, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2018 10:36 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >>> On 17/05/18 16:55, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> +	A parent cgroup cannot distribute all its CPUs to child
> >>>> +	scheduling domain cgroups unless its load balancing flag is
> >>>> +	turned off.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  cpuset.sched.load_balance
> >>>> +	A read-write single value file which exists on non-root
> >>>> +	cpuset-enabled cgroups.  It is a binary value flag that accepts
> >>>> +	either "0" (off) or a non-zero value (on).  This flag is set
> >>>> +	by the parent and is not delegatable.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	When it is on, tasks within this cpuset will be load-balanced
> >>>> +	by the kernel scheduler.  Tasks will be moved from CPUs with
> >>>> +	high load to other CPUs within the same cpuset with less load
> >>>> +	periodically.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	When it is off, there will be no load balancing among CPUs on
> >>>> +	this cgroup.  Tasks will stay in the CPUs they are running on
> >>>> +	and will not be moved to other CPUs.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	The initial value of this flag is "1".	This flag is then
> >>>> +	inherited by child cgroups with cpuset enabled.  Its state
> >>>> +	can only be changed on a scheduling domain cgroup with no
> >>>> +	cpuset-enabled children.
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * On default hierachy, a load balance flag change is only allowed
> >>>> +	 * in a scheduling domain with no child cpuset.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(cpuset_cgrp_subsys) && balance_flag_changed &&
> >>>> +	   (!is_sched_domain(cs) || css_has_online_children(&cs->css))) {
> >>>> +		err = -EINVAL;
> >>>> +		goto out;
> >>>> +	}
> >>> The rule is actually
> >>>
> >>>  - no child cpuset
> >>>  - and it must be a scheduling domain

I always a bit confused by the usage of "scheduling domain", which
overlaps with the SD concept from the scheduler standpoint.

AFAIU a cpuset sched domain is not granted to be turned into an
actual scheduler SD, am I wrong?

If that's the case, why not better disambiguate these two concept by
calling the cpuset one a "cpus partition" or eventually "cpuset domain"?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi