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]

Message-ID: <20190712075318.GM3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:53:18 +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 Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:08AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> On 2019/7/11 下午10:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> >> 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.
> 
> Hmm.. in our early testing the printk show both select_task_rq_fair() and
> task_numa_find_cpu() will call select_idle_sibling with prev and target on
> different node, thus we pick this point to save few lines.

But it will never return @prev if it is not in the same cache domain as
@target. See how everything is gated by:

  && cpus_share_cache(x, target)

> But if the semantics of select_idle_sibling() is to return cpu on the same
> node of target, what about move the logical after select_idle_sibling() for
> the two callers?

No, that's insane. You don't do select_idle_sibling() to then ignore the
result. You have to change @target before calling select_idle_sibling().