linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] numa: introduce numa cling feature

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 16:27:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] numa: introduce numa cling feature

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:34:16AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> Although we paid so many effort to settle down task on a particular
> node, there are still chances for a task to leave it's preferred
> node, that is by wakeup, numa swap migrations or load balance.
> 
> When we are using cpu cgroup in share way, since all the workloads
> see all the cpus, it could be really bad especially when there
> are too many fast wakeup, although now we can numa group the tasks,
> they won't really stay on the same node, for example we have numa
> group ng_A, ng_B, ng_C, ng_D, it's very likely result as:
> 
> 	CPU Usage:
> 		Node 0		Node 1
> 		ng_A(600%)	ng_A(400%)
> 		ng_B(400%)	ng_B(600%)
> 		ng_C(400%)	ng_C(600%)
> 		ng_D(600%)	ng_D(400%)
> 
> 	Memory Ratio:
> 		Node 0		Node 1
> 		ng_A(60%)	ng_A(40%)
> 		ng_B(40%)	ng_B(60%)
> 		ng_C(40%)	ng_C(60%)
> 		ng_D(60%)	ng_D(40%)
> 
> Locality won't be too bad but far from the best situation, we want
> a numa group to settle down thoroughly on a particular node, with
> every thing balanced.
> 
> Thus we introduce the numa cling, which try to prevent tasks leaving
> the preferred node on wakeup fast path.


> @@ -6195,6 +6447,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>  	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>  		return i;
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * Failed to find an idle cpu, wake affine may want to pull but
> +	 * try stay on prev-cpu when the task cling to it.
> +	 */
> +	if (task_numa_cling(p, cpu_to_node(prev), cpu_to_node(target)))
> +		return prev;
> +
>  	return target;
>  }

Select idle sibling should never cross node boundaries and is thus the
entirely wrong place to fix anything.