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  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:   Sat, 18 May 2019 23:37:56 +0800
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Frédéric 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>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 13/17] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:18 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vpillai@...italocean.com> wrote:
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>
> Instead of only selecting a local task, select a task for all SMT
> siblings for every reschedule on the core (irrespective which logical
> CPU does the reschedule).
>
> NOTE: there is still potential for siblings rivalry.
> NOTE: this is far too complicated; but thus far I've failed to
>       simplify it further.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  | 222 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  kernel/sched/sched.h |   5 +-
>  2 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index e5bdc1c4d8d7..9e6e90c6f9b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3574,7 +3574,7 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>   * Pick up the highest-prio task:
>   */
>  static inline struct task_struct *
> -pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +__pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  {
>         const struct sched_class *class;
>         struct task_struct *p;
> @@ -3619,6 +3619,220 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>         BUG();
>  }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> +
> +static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> +{
> +       if (is_idle_task(a) || is_idle_task(b))
> +               return true;
> +
> +       return a->core_cookie == b->core_cookie;
> +}
> +
> +// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
> +{
> +       struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
> +       unsigned long cookie = 0UL;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * We must not rely on rq->core->core_cookie here, because we fail to reset
> +        * rq->core->core_cookie on new picks, such that we can detect if we need
> +        * to do single vs multi rq task selection.
> +        */
> +
> +       if (max && max->core_cookie) {
> +               WARN_ON_ONCE(rq->core->core_cookie != max->core_cookie);
> +               cookie = max->core_cookie;
> +       }
> +
> +       class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
> +       if (!cookie)
> +               return class_pick;
> +
> +       cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
> +       if (!class_pick)
> +               return cookie_pick;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
> +        * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
> +        * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
> +        */
> +       if (cpu_prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) && core_prio_less(max, class_pick))
> +               return class_pick;
> +
> +       return cookie_pick;
> +}
> +
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> +       struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
> +       const struct sched_class *class;
> +       const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
> +       int i, j, cpu;
> +
> +       if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
> +               return __pick_next_task(rq, prev, rf);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * If there were no {en,de}queues since we picked (IOW, the task
> +        * pointers are all still valid), and we haven't scheduled the last
> +        * pick yet, do so now.
> +        */
> +       if (rq->core->core_pick_seq == rq->core->core_task_seq &&
> +           rq->core->core_pick_seq != rq->core_sched_seq) {
> +               WRITE_ONCE(rq->core_sched_seq, rq->core->core_pick_seq);
> +
> +               next = rq->core_pick;
> +               if (next != prev) {
> +                       put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> +                       set_next_task(rq, next);
> +               }
> +               return next;
> +       }
> +

The following patch improved my test cases.
Welcome any comments.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 3e3162f..86031f4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3685,10 +3685,12 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct
task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
        /*
         * If there were no {en,de}queues since we picked (IOW, the task
         * pointers are all still valid), and we haven't scheduled the last
-        * pick yet, do so now.
+        * pick yet, do so now. If the last pick is idle task, we abandon
+        * last pick and try to pick up task this time.
         */
        if (rq->core->core_pick_seq == rq->core->core_task_seq &&
-           rq->core->core_pick_seq != rq->core_sched_seq) {
+           rq->core->core_pick_seq != rq->core_sched_seq &&
+           !is_idle_task(rq->core_pick)) {
                WRITE_ONCE(rq->core_sched_seq, rq->core->core_pick_seq);

                next = rq->core_pick;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists