linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access

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: <cd11cde9-4aed-b02f-cae5-170bb6fa686b@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:35:51 -0700
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
To:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Vineeth Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access


On 3/29/19 3:23 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
>
> On 3/29/19 6:35 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:09 PM Subhra Mazumdar 
>> <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Is the core wide lock primarily responsible for the regression? I ran
>>> upto patch
>>> 12 which also has the core wide lock for tagged cgroups and also calls
>>> newidle_balance() from pick_next_task(). I don't see any 
>>> regression.  Of
>>> course
>>> the core sched version of pick_next_task() may be doing more but
>>> comparing with
>>> the __pick_next_task() it doesn't look too horrible.
>> On further testing and investigation, we also agree that spinlock 
>> contention
>> is not the major cause for the regression, but we feel that it should 
>> be one
>> of the major contributing factors to this performance loss.
>>
>>
> I finally did some code bisection and found the following lines are
> basically responsible for the regression. Commenting them out I don't see
> the regressions. Can you confirm? I am yet to figure if this is needed 
> for
> the correctness of core scheduling and if so can we do this better?
>
> -------->8-------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index fe3918c..3b3388a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3741,8 +3741,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct 
> *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>                                  * If there weren't no cookies; we 
> don't need
>                                  * to bother with the other siblings.
> */
> -                               if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
> -                                       goto next_class;
> +                               //if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
> +                                       //goto next_class;
>
> continue;
>                         }
AFAICT this condition is not needed for correctness as cookie matching will
sill be enforced. Peter any thoughts? I get the following numbers with 1 DB
and 2 DB instance.

1 DB instance
users  baseline   %idle  core_sched %idle
16     1          84     -5.5% 84
24     1          76     -5% 76
32     1          69     -0.45% 69

2 DB instance
users  baseline   %idle  core_sched %idle
16     1          66     -23.8% 69
24     1          54     -3.1% 57
32     1          42     -21.1%      48