linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 7/8] sched/fair: evenly spread tasks when not overloaded

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: <1564670424-26023-8-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu,  1 Aug 2019 16:40:23 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     pauld@...hat.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, quentin.perret@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 7/8] sched/fair: evenly spread tasks when not overloaded

When there is only 1 cpu per group, using the idle cpus to evenly spread
tasks doesn't make sense and nr_running is a better metrics.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index dfaf0b8..53e64a7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8654,18 +8654,34 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
 	    busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
 		goto force_balance;
 
-	if (busiest->group_type != group_overloaded &&
-	     (env->idle == CPU_NOT_IDLE ||
-	      local->idle_cpus <= (busiest->idle_cpus + 1)))
-		/*
-		 * If the busiest group is not overloaded
-		 * and there is no imbalance between this and busiest group
-		 * wrt idle CPUs, it is balanced. The imbalance
-		 * becomes significant if the diff is greater than 1 otherwise
-		 * we might end up to just move the imbalance on another
-		 * group.
-		 */
-		goto out_balanced;
+	if (busiest->group_type != group_overloaded) {
+		if (env->idle == CPU_NOT_IDLE)
+			/*
+			 * If the busiest group is not overloaded (and as a
+			 * result the local one too) but this cpu is already
+			 * busy, let another idle cpu try to pull task.
+			 */
+			goto out_balanced;
+
+		if (busiest->group_weight > 1 &&
+		    local->idle_cpus <= (busiest->idle_cpus + 1))
+			/*
+			 * If the busiest group is not overloaded
+			 * and there is no imbalance between this and busiest
+			 * group wrt idle CPUs, it is balanced. The imbalance
+			 * becomes significant if the diff is greater than 1
+			 * otherwise we might end up to just move the imbalance
+			 * on another group. Of course this applies only if
+			 * there is more than 1 CPU per group.
+			 */
+			goto out_balanced;
+
+		if (busiest->sum_h_nr_running == 1)
+			/*
+			 * busiest doesn't have any tasks waiting to run
+			 */
+			goto out_balanced;
+	}
 
 force_balance:
 	/* Looks like there is an imbalance. Compute it */
-- 
2.7.4