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]

Message-ID: <CANaguZBevMsQ_Zy1ozKn2Z5Uj6WBviC6UU+zpTQOVdDDLK6r2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:44:32 -0400
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.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 Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:55 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

>
> I don't think we need do the normalization afterwrads and it appears
> we are on the same page regarding core wide vruntime.
>
> The intent of my patch is to treat all the root level sched entities of
> the two siblings as if they are in a single cfs_rq of the core. With a
> core wide min_vruntime, the core scheduler can decide which sched entity
> to run next. And the individual sched entity's vruntime shouldn't be
> changed based on the change of core wide min_vruntime, or faireness can
> hurt(if we add or reduce vruntime of a sched entity, its credit will
> change).
>
Ok, I think I get it now. I see that your first patch actually wraps
all the places
where min_vruntime is accessed. So yes, the tree vruntime updation is needed
only one time. From then on, since we use the wrapper cfs_rq_min_vruntime(),
both the runqueues would self adjust from then on based on the code wide
min_vruntime. Also by the virtue that min_vruntime stays min from there on, the
tree updation logic will not be called more than once. So I think the
changes are safe.
I will do some profiling to make sure that it is actually called once only.

> The weird thing about my patch is, the min_vruntime is often increased,
> it doesn't point to the smallest value as in a traditional cfs_rq. This
> probabaly can be changed to follow the tradition, I don't quite remember
> why I did this, will need to check this some time later.

Yeah, I noticed this. In my patch, I had already accounted for this and changed
to min() instead of max() which is more logical that min_vruntime should be the
minimum of both the run queue.

> All those sub cfs_rq's sched entities are not interesting. Because once
> we decided which sched entity in the root level cfs_rq should run next,
> we can then pick the final next task from there(using the usual way). In
> other words, to make scheduler choose the correct candidate for the core,
> we only need worry about sched entities on both CPU's root level cfs_rqs.
>
Understood. The only reason I did the normalize is to get both the runqueues
under one min_vruntime always. And as long as we use the cfs_rq_min_vruntime
from then on, we wouldn't be calling the balancing logic any more.

> Does this make sense?

Sure, thanks for the clarification.

Thanks,
Vineeth