linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] steal tasks to improve CPU utilization

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:10 -0400
From:   Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
        umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, riel@...hat.com, jbacik@...com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] steal tasks to improve CPU utilization

On 10/22/2018 1:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:59:31AM -0700, Steve Sistare wrote:
>> When a CPU has no more CFS tasks to run, and idle_balance() fails to
>> find a task, then attempt to steal a task from an overloaded CPU in the
>> same LLC. Maintain and use a bitmap of overloaded CPUs to efficiently
>> identify candidates.  To minimize search time, steal the first migratable
>> task that is found when the bitmap is traversed.  For fairness, search
>> for migratable tasks on an overloaded CPU in order of next to run.
>>
>> This simple stealing yields a higher CPU utilization than idle_balance()
>> alone, because the search is cheap, so it may be called every time the CPU
>> is about to go idle.  idle_balance() does more work because it searches
>> widely for the busiest queue, so to limit its CPU consumption, it declines
>> to search if the system is too busy.  Simple stealing does not offload the
>> globally busiest queue, but it is much better than running nothing at all.
> 
> Why I don't dislike the idea; I feel it is unfortunate to have two
> different mechanisms to do effectively the same thing.
> 
> Can't we improve idle_balance() instead of building this parallel
> functionality?

We could delete idle_balance() and use stealing exclusively for handling
new idle.  For each sd level, stealing would look for an overloaded CPU
in the overloaded bitmap(s) that overlap that level.  I played with that
a little but it is not ready for prime time, and I did not want to hold
the patch series for it.  Also, I would like folks to get some production
experience with stealing on a variety of architectures before considering
a radical step like replacing idle_balance().

We could merge the stealing code into the idle_balance() code to get a
union of the two, but IMO that would be less readable.

We could remove the core and socket levels from idle_balance() and let
stealing handle those levels.  I think that makes sense after stealing
performance is validated on more architectures, but we would still have
two different mechanisms.

- Steve