linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

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:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:43:28 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It should, but it's not perfect. For example, wake_affine_idle does not
> > take sibling activity into account even though select_idle_sibling *may*
> > take it into account. Even select_idle_sibling in its fast path may use
> > an SMT sibling instead of searching.
> > 
> > There are also potential side-effects with cpuidle. Some workloads
> > migration around the socket as they are communicating because of how the
> > search for an idle CPU works. With SMT on, there is potentially a longer
> > opportunity for a core to reach a deep c-state and incur a bigger wakeup
> > latency. This is a very weak theory but I've seen cases where latency
> > sensitive workloads with only two communicating tasks are affected by
> > CPUs reaching low c-states due to migrations.
> > 
> > > Clearly it doesn't.
> > > 
> > 
> > It's more that it's best effort to wakeup quickly instead of being perfect
> > by using an expensive search every time.
> 
> Yeah, but your numbers suggest that for *most* not heavily interacting 
> under-utilized CPU bound workloads we hurt in the 5-10% range compared to 
> no-SMT - more in some cases.
> 

Indeed, it was higher than expected and we can't even use the excuse that
more resources are available to a single logical CPU as the scheduler is
meant to keep them apart.

> So we avoid a maybe 0.1% scheduler placement overhead but inflict 5-10% 
> harm on the workload, and also blow up stddev by randomly co-scheduling 
> two tasks on the same physical core? Not a good trade-off.
> 
> I really think we should implement a relatively strict physical core 
> placement policy in the under-utilized case, and resist any attempts to 
> weaken this for special workloads that ping-pong quickly and benefit from 
> sharing the same physical core.
> 

It's worth a shot at least. Changes should mostly be in the wake_affine
path for most loads of interest.

> I.e. as long as load is kept below ~50% the SMT and !SMT benchmark 
> results and stddev numbers should match up. (With a bit of a leewy if the 
> workload gets near to 50% or occasionally goes above it.)
> 
> There's absolutely no excluse for these numbers at 30-40% load levels I 
> think.
> 

Agreed. I'll put it on the todo list but there is no way I'll get to it
in the short term due to LSF/MM. Minimally I'll put some thought into
tooling to track how often siblings are used with some reporting on when a
sibling was used when there was an idle core available. That'll at least
quantify the problem and verify the hypothesis.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs