linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] sched/fair: Fix low cpu usage with high throttling by removing expiration of cpu-local slices

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:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:51:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     bsegall@...gle.com
Cc:     Dave Chiluk <chiluk+linux@...eed.com>,
        Pqhil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Kyle Anderson <kwa@...p.com>,
        Gabriel Munos <gmunoz@...flix.com>,
        John Hammond <jhammond@...eed.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] sched/fair: Fix low cpu usage with high
 throttling by removing expiration of cpu-local slices


FWIW, good to see progress, still waiting for you guys to agree :-)

On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 01:15:44PM -0700, bsegall@...gle.com wrote:

> - Taking up-to-every rq->lock is bad and expensive and 5ms may be too
>   short a delay for this. I haven't tried microbenchmarks on the cost of
>   this vs min_cfs_rq_runtime = 0 vs baseline.

Yes, that's tricky, SGI/HPE have definite ideas about that.

> @@ -4781,12 +4790,41 @@ static __always_inline void return_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>   */
>  static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
>  {
> -	u64 runtime = 0, slice = sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice();
> +	u64 runtime = 0;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	u64 expires;
> +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, *temp;
> +	LIST_HEAD(temp_head);
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +	cfs_b->slack_started = false;
> +	list_splice_init(&cfs_b->slack_cfs_rq, &temp_head);
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +
> +
> +	/* Gather all left over runtime from all rqs */
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(cfs_rq, temp, &temp_head, slack_list) {
> +		struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
> +		struct rq_flags rf;
> +
> +		rq_lock(rq, &rf);
> +
> +		raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +		list_del_init(&cfs_rq->slack_list);
> +		if (!cfs_rq->nr_running && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0 &&
> +		    cfs_rq->runtime_expires == cfs_b->runtime_expires) {
> +			cfs_b->runtime += cfs_rq->runtime_remaining;
> +			cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
> +		}
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +
> +		rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> +	}

But worse still, you take possibly every rq->lock without ever
re-enabling IRQs.

>  
>  	/* confirm we're still not at a refresh boundary */
> -	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cfs_b->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>  	cfs_b->slack_started = false;
>  	if (cfs_b->distribute_running) {
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cfs_b->lock, flags);