linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

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:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 10:40:09 +0800
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:30 AM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> +static inline s64 core_sched_imbalance_delta(int src_cpu, int dst_cpu,
> +                       int src_sibling, int dst_sibling,
> +                       struct task_group *tg, u64 task_load)
> +{
> +       struct sched_entity *se, *se_sibling, *dst_se, *dst_se_sibling;
> +       s64 excess, deficit, old_mismatch, new_mismatch;
> +
> +       if (src_cpu == dst_cpu)
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       /* XXX SMT4 will require additional logic */
> +
> +       se = tg->se[src_cpu];
> +       se_sibling = tg->se[src_sibling];
> +
> +       excess = se->avg.load_avg - se_sibling->avg.load_avg;
> +       if (src_sibling == dst_cpu) {
> +               old_mismatch = abs(excess);
> +               new_mismatch = abs(excess - 2*task_load);
> +               return old_mismatch - new_mismatch;
> +       }
> +
> +       dst_se = tg->se[dst_cpu];
> +       dst_se_sibling = tg->se[dst_sibling];
> +       deficit = dst_se->avg.load_avg - dst_se_sibling->avg.load_avg;
> +
> +       old_mismatch = abs(excess) + abs(deficit);
> +       new_mismatch = abs(excess - (s64) task_load) +
> +                      abs(deficit + (s64) task_load);

If I understood correctly, these formulas made an assumption that the task
being moved to the destination is matched the destination's core cookie. so if
the task is not matched with dst's core cookie and still have to stay
in the runqueue
then the formula becomes not correct.

>  /**
>   * update_sg_lb_stats - Update sched_group's statistics for load balancing.
>   * @env: The load balancing environment.
> @@ -8345,7 +8492,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
>                 else
>                         load = source_load(i, load_idx);
>
> -               sgs->group_load += load;

Why is this load update line removed?

> +               core_sched_imbalance_scan(sgs, i, env->dst_cpu);
> +
>                 sgs->group_util += cpu_util(i);
>                 sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->cfs.h_nr_running;
>

Thanks,
-Aubrey