linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] sched/topology: Provide cfs_overload

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: <7d9b6789-af17-bcab-e52d-7e05483e10ea@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:42:37 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     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,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, quentin.perret@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] sched/topology: Provide cfs_overload_cpus bitmap

On 19/11/2018 17:33, Steven Sistare wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Thinking about misfit stealing, we can't use the sd_llc_shared's because
>> on big.LITTLE misfit migrations happen across LLC domains.
>>
>> I was thinking of adding a misfit sparsemask to the root_domain, but
>> then I thought we could do the same thing for cfs_overload_cpus.
>>
>> By doing so we'd have a single source of information for overloaded CPUs,
>> and we could filter that down during idle balance - you mentioned earlier
>> wanting to try stealing at each SD level. This would also let you get
>> rid of [PATCH 02].
>>
>> The main part of try_steal() could then be written down as something like
>> this:
>>
>> ----->8-----
>>
>> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
>> 	span = sched_domain_span(sd)
>> 		
>> 	for_each_sparse_wrap(src_cpu, overload_cpus) {
>> 		if (cpumask_test_cpu(src_cpu, span) &&
>> 		    steal_from(dts_rq, dst_rf, &locked, src_cpu)) {
>> 			stolen = 1;
>> 			goto out;
>> 		}
>> 	}
>> }
>>
>> ------8<-----
>>
>> We could limit the stealing to stop at the highest SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
>> domain for now so there would be no behavioural change - but we'd
>> factorize the #ifdef SCHED_SMT bit. Furthermore, the door would be open
>> to further stealing.
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> That is not efficient for a multi-level search because at each domain level we 
> would (re) iterate over overloaded candidates that do not belong in that level.


Mmm I was thinking we could abuse the wrap() and start at
(fls(prev_span) + 1), but we're not guaranteed to have contiguous spans -
the Arm Juno for instance has [0, 3, 4], [1, 2] as MC-level domains, so
that goes down the drain.

Another thing that has been trotting in my head would be some helper to
create a cpumask from a sparsemask (some sort of sparsemask_span()),
which would let us use the standard mask operators:

----->8-----
struct cpumask *overload_span = sparsemask_span(overload_cpus)

for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd)
	for_each_cpu_and(src_cpu, overload_span, sched_domain_span(sd))
		<steal_from here>
-----8>-----

The cpumask could be part of the sparsemask struct to save us the
allocation, and only updated when calling sparsemask_span().

> To extend stealing across LLC, I would like to keep the per-LLC sparsemask, 
> but add to each SD a list of sparsemask pointers.  The list nodes would be
> private, but the sparsemask structs would be shared.  Each list would include
> the masks that overlap the SD's members.  The list would be a singleton at the
> core and LLC levels (same as the socket level for most processors), and would 
> have multiple elements at the NUMA level.
> 

I see. As for misfit, creating asym_cpucapacity siblings of the sd_llc_*()
functions seems a bit much - there'd be a lot of redundancy for basically
just a single shared sparsemask, which is why I was rambling about moving
things to root_domain.

Having different locations where sparsemasks are stored is a bit of a
pain which I'd like to avoid, but if it can't be unified I suppose we'll
have to live with it.

> - Steve
>