linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 09/11] sched/fair: use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path

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: <1571405198-27570-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:26:36 +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,
        hdanton@...a.com, parth@...ux.ibm.com, riel@...riel.com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 09/11] sched/fair: use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path

runnable load has been introduced to take into account the case where
blocked load biases the wake up path which may end to select an overloaded
CPU with a large number of runnable tasks instead of an underutilized
CPU with a huge blocked load.

Tha wake up path now starts to looks for idle CPUs before comparing
runnable load and it's worth aligning the wake up path with the
load_balance.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 670856d..6203e71 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1475,7 +1475,12 @@ bool should_numa_migrate_memory(struct task_struct *p, struct page * page,
 	       group_faults_cpu(ng, src_nid) * group_faults(p, dst_nid) * 4;
 }
 
-static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq);
+static inline unsigned long cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
+
+static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq)
+{
+	return cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(&rq->cfs);
+}
 
 /* Cached statistics for all CPUs within a node */
 struct numa_stats {
@@ -5380,11 +5385,6 @@ static int sched_idle_cpu(int cpu)
 			rq->nr_running);
 }
 
-static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq)
-{
-	return cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(&rq->cfs);
-}
-
 static unsigned long cpu_load(struct rq *rq)
 {
 	return cfs_rq_load_avg(&rq->cfs);
@@ -5485,7 +5485,7 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
 	s64 this_eff_load, prev_eff_load;
 	unsigned long task_load;
 
-	this_eff_load = cpu_runnable_load(cpu_rq(this_cpu));
+	this_eff_load = cpu_load(cpu_rq(this_cpu));
 
 	if (sync) {
 		unsigned long current_load = task_h_load(current);
@@ -5503,7 +5503,7 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
 		this_eff_load *= 100;
 	this_eff_load *= capacity_of(prev_cpu);
 
-	prev_eff_load = cpu_runnable_load(cpu_rq(prev_cpu));
+	prev_eff_load = cpu_load(cpu_rq(prev_cpu));
 	prev_eff_load -= task_load;
 	if (sched_feat(WA_BIAS))
 		prev_eff_load *= 100 + (sd->imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
@@ -5591,7 +5591,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
 		max_spare_cap = 0;
 
 		for_each_cpu(i, sched_group_span(group)) {
-			load = cpu_runnable_load(cpu_rq(i));
+			load = cpu_load(cpu_rq(i));
 			runnable_load += load;
 
 			avg_load += cfs_rq_load_avg(&cpu_rq(i)->cfs);
@@ -5732,7 +5732,7 @@ find_idlest_group_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this
 				continue;
 			}
 
-			load = cpu_runnable_load(cpu_rq(i));
+			load = cpu_load(cpu_rq(i));
 			if (load < min_load) {
 				min_load = load;
 				least_loaded_cpu = i;
-- 
2.7.4