linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make sched-idle cpu selection consistent throughout

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: <3c8f52ac-4302-5152-2d57-2fe912e1ff9b@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:30:34 +0530
From:   Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make sched-idle cpu selection consistent
 throughout



On 10/25/19 1:41 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-10-19, 12:13, Parth Shah wrote:
>> Hi Viresh,
>>
>> On 10/24/19 12:15 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> There are instances where we keep searching for an idle CPU despite
>>> having a sched-idle cpu already (in find_idlest_group_cpu(),
>>> select_idle_smt() and select_idle_cpu() and then there are places where
>>> we don't necessarily do that and return a sched-idle cpu as soon as we
>>> find one (in select_idle_sibling()). This looks a bit inconsistent and
>>> it may be worth having the same policy everywhere.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, choosing a sched-idle cpu over a idle one shall be
>>> beneficial from performance point of view as well, as we don't need to
>>> get the cpu online from a deep idle state which is quite a time
>>> consuming process and delays the scheduling of the newly wakeup task.
>>>
>>> This patch tries to simplify code around sched-idle cpu selection and
>>> make it consistent throughout.
>>>
>>> FWIW, tests were done with the help of rt-app (8 SCHED_OTHER and 5
>>> SCHED_IDLE tasks, not bound to any cpu) on ARM platform (octa-core), and
>>> no significant difference in scheduling latency of SCHED_OTHER tasks was
>>> found.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> @@ -5755,13 +5749,11 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
>>>  	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) {
>>>  		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
>>>  			continue;
>>> -		if (available_idle_cpu(cpu))
>>> +		if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
>>>  			return cpu;
>>
>> I guess this is a correct approach, but just wondering what if we still
>> keep searching for a sched_idle CPU even though we have found an
>> available_idle CPU?
> 
> I do believe selecting a sched-idle CPU should almost always be better
> (performance wise), unless we have a strong argument against it. And
> anyway, the load balancer will get triggered at a later point of time
> and will pull away these newly wakeup tasks to idle CPUs. The
> advantage we get out of it is that the tasks get serviced a bit
> earlier when they first get queued.
> 
> It is really up to the maintainers to see what kind of policy do we
> want to adapt here and not a choice I can make :)
> 

yeah, I agree. I will favor selecting sched-idle first for smaller domains
like SMT but would leave on experts.
BTW, if sched-idle is given priority then maybe...
> @@ -5818,13 +5810,11 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>
>  	for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd), target) {
>  		if (!--nr)
> -			return si_cpu;
> +			return -1;
>  		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
>  			continue;
> -		if (available_idle_cpu(cpu))
> +		if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
>  			break;
...here too can be optimized I guess.


Thanks,
Parth