| 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: <1529514181-9842-17-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:32:57 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH v2 16/19] sched/numa: Detect if node actively handling migration
If a node is the destination for a task migration under numa balancing,
then any parallel movements to the node will be restricted. In such a
scenario, detect at the earliest and avoid evaluation for a task
movement.
While here, avoid task migration if the numa imbalance is very minimal.
Especially consider two tasks A and B racing with each other to find the
best cpu to swap. If task A already has found one task/cpu pair to
swap and trying to find a better cpu. Task B is yet to find a better
cpu/task to swap. Task A can race with task B and deprive it from
getting a task/cpu to swap.
Running SPECjbb2005 on a 4 node machine and comparing bops/JVM
JVMS LAST_PATCH WITH_PATCH %CHANGE
16 25960 26015.6 0.214
1 73550 73484 -0.08
Running SPECjbb2005 on a 16 node machine and comparing bops/JVM
JVMS LAST_PATCH WITH_PATCH %CHANGE
8 120071 120453 0.31
1 176249 181140 2.77
Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev
numa01.sh Real: 493.19 672.88 597.51 59.38
numa01.sh Sys: 150.09 245.48 207.76 34.26
numa01.sh User: 41928.51 53779.17 48747.06 3901.39
numa02.sh Real: 60.63 62.87 61.22 0.83
numa02.sh Sys: 16.64 27.97 20.25 4.06
numa02.sh User: 5222.92 5309.60 5254.03 29.98
numa03.sh Real: 821.52 902.15 863.60 32.41
numa03.sh Sys: 112.04 130.66 118.35 7.08
numa03.sh User: 62245.16 69165.14 66443.04 2450.32
numa04.sh Real: 414.53 519.57 476.25 37.00
numa04.sh Sys: 181.84 335.67 280.41 54.07
numa04.sh User: 33924.50 39115.39 37343.78 1934.26
numa05.sh Real: 408.30 441.45 417.90 12.05
numa05.sh Sys: 233.41 381.60 295.58 57.37
numa05.sh User: 33301.31 35972.50 34335.19 938.94
Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
numa01.sh Real: 428.48 837.17 700.45 162.77 -14.6%
numa01.sh Sys: 78.64 247.70 164.45 58.32 26.33%
numa01.sh User: 37487.25 63728.06 54399.27 10088.13 -10.3%
numa02.sh Real: 60.07 62.65 61.41 0.85 -0.30%
numa02.sh Sys: 15.83 29.36 21.04 4.48 -3.75%
numa02.sh User: 5194.27 5280.60 5236.55 28.01 0.333%
numa03.sh Real: 814.33 881.93 849.69 27.06 1.637%
numa03.sh Sys: 111.45 134.02 125.28 7.69 -5.53%
numa03.sh User: 63007.36 68013.46 65590.46 2023.37 1.299%
numa04.sh Real: 412.19 438.75 424.43 9.28 12.20%
numa04.sh Sys: 232.97 315.77 268.98 26.98 4.249%
numa04.sh User: 33997.30 35292.88 34711.66 415.78 7.582%
numa05.sh Real: 394.88 449.45 424.30 22.53 -1.50%
numa05.sh Sys: 262.03 390.10 314.53 51.01 -6.02%
numa05.sh User: 33389.03 35684.40 34561.34 942.34 -0.65%
Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Changelog v1->v2:
- Handle trivial changes due to variable name change.
- Also reevaluate node active migration for every cpu.
- Now detect active migration in task_numa_find_cpu as
suggested by Rik Van Riel.
kernel/sched/fair.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 9db09a6..c07ac30 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1535,6 +1535,13 @@ static bool load_too_imbalanced(long src_load, long dst_load,
}
/*
+ * Maximum numa importance can be 1998 (2*999);
+ * SMALLIMP @ 30 would be close to 1998/64.
+ * Used to deter task migration.
+ */
+#define SMALLIMP 30
+
+/*
* This checks if the overall compute and NUMA accesses of the system would
* be improved if the source tasks was migrated to the target dst_cpu taking
* into account that it might be best if task running on the dst_cpu should
@@ -1567,7 +1574,7 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
goto unlock;
if (!cur) {
- if (maymove || imp > env->best_imp)
+ if (maymove && moveimp >= env->best_imp)
goto assign;
else
goto unlock;
@@ -1610,16 +1617,22 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
task_weight(cur, env->dst_nid, dist);
}
- if (imp <= env->best_imp)
- goto unlock;
-
if (maymove && moveimp > imp && moveimp > env->best_imp) {
- imp = moveimp - 1;
+ imp = moveimp;
cur = NULL;
goto assign;
}
/*
+ * If the numa importance is less than SMALLIMP,
+ * task migration might only result in ping pong
+ * of tasks and also hurt performance due to cache
+ * misses.
+ */
+ if (imp < SMALLIMP)
+ goto unlock;
+
+ /*
* In the overloaded case, try and keep the load balanced.
*/
load = task_h_load(env->p) - task_h_load(cur);
@@ -1656,6 +1669,7 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
long taskimp, long groupimp)
{
+ pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(cpu_to_node(env->dst_cpu));
long src_load, dst_load, load;
bool maymove = false;
int cpu;
@@ -1671,12 +1685,14 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
maymove = !load_too_imbalanced(src_load, dst_load, env);
for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(env->dst_nid)) {
+ bool move = maymove && !READ_ONCE(pgdat->active_node_migrate);
+
/* Skip this CPU if the source task cannot migrate */
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &env->p->cpus_allowed))
continue;
env->dst_cpu = cpu;
- task_numa_compare(env, taskimp, groupimp, maymove);
+ task_numa_compare(env, taskimp, groupimp, move);
}
}
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists