linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] per cgroup numa suite

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: <6a050974-30f3-66b6-4c99-c7e376fb84d8@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:00:10 +0800
From:   王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per cgroup numa suite

Hi folks,

How do you think about these patches?

During most of our tests the results show stable improvements, thus
we consider this as a generic problem and proposed this solution,
hope to help address the issue.

Comments are sincerely welcome :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

On 2019/7/3 上午11:26, 王贇 wrote:
> During our torturing on numa stuff, we found problems like:
> 
>   * missing per-cgroup information about the per-node execution status
>   * missing per-cgroup information about the numa locality
> 
> That is when we have a cpu cgroup running with bunch of tasks, no good
> way to tell how it's tasks are dealing with numa.
> 
> The first two patches are trying to complete the missing pieces, but
> more problems appeared after monitoring these status:
> 
>   * tasks not always running on the preferred numa node
>   * tasks from same cgroup running on different nodes
> 
> The task numa group handler will always check if tasks are sharing pages
> and try to pack them into a single numa group, so they will have chance to
> settle down on the same node, but this failed in some cases:
> 
>   * workloads share page caches rather than share mappings
>   * workloads got too many wakeup across nodes
> 
> Since page caches are not traced by numa balancing, there are no way to
> realize such kind of relationship, and when there are too many wakeup,
> task will be drag from the preferred node and then migrate back by numa
> balancing, repeatedly.
> 
> Here the third patch try to address the first issue, we could now give hint
> to kernel about the relationship of tasks, and pack them into single numa
> group.
> 
> And the forth patch introduced numa cling, which try to address the wakup
> issue, now we try to make task stay on the preferred node on wakeup in fast
> path, in order to address the unbalancing risk, we monitoring the numa
> migration failure ratio, and pause numa cling when it reach the specified
> degree.
> 
> Michael Wang (4):
>   numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality statistic
>   numa: append per-node execution info in memory.numa_stat
>   numa: introduce numa group per task group
>   numa: introduce numa cling feature
> 
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h   |  37 ++++
>  include/linux/sched.h        |   8 +-
>  include/linux/sched/sysctl.h |   3 +
>  kernel/sched/core.c          |  37 ++++
>  kernel/sched/debug.c         |   7 +
>  kernel/sched/fair.c          | 455 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  kernel/sched/sched.h         |  14 ++
>  kernel/sysctl.c              |   9 +
>  mm/memcontrol.c              |  66 +++++++
>  9 files changed, 628 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>