linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small degree of load imbalance between SD

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: <20200107114211.GH3466@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:42:11 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small degree of load imbalance
 between SD_NUMA domains v2

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Much more importantly, doing what you suggest allows an imbalance
> > of more CPUs than are backed by a single LLC. On high-end AMD EPYC 2
> > machines, busiest->group_weight scaled by imbalance_pct spans multiple L3
> > caches. That is going to have side-effects. While I also do not account
> > for the LLC group_weight, it's unlikely the cut-off I used would be
> > smaller than an LLC cache on a large machine as the cache.
> > 
> > These two points are why I didn't take the group weight into account.
> > 
> > Now if you want, I can do what you suggest anyway as long as you are happy
> > that the child domain weight is also taken into account and to bound the
> > largest possible allowed imbalance to deal with the case of a node having
> > multiple small LLC caches. That means that some machines will be using the
> > size of the node and some machines will use the size of an LLC. It's less
> > predictable overall as some machines will be "special" relative to others
> > making it harder to reproduce certain problems locally but it would take
> > imbalance_pct into account in a way that you're happy with.
> > 
> > Also bear in mind that whether LLC is accounted for or not, the final
> > result should be halved similar to the other imbalance calculations to
> > avoid over or under load balancing.
> 
> > +		/* Consider allowing a small imbalance between NUMA groups */
> > +		if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> > +			struct sched_domain *child = env->sd->child;
> 
> This assumes sd-child exists, which should be true for NUMA domains I
> suppose.
> 

I would be stunned if it was not. What sort of NUMA domain would not have
child domains? Does a memory-only NUMA node with no CPUs even generate
a scheduler domain? If it does, then I guess the check is necessary.

> > +			unsigned int imbalance_adj;
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Calculate an acceptable degree of imbalance based
> > +			 * on imbalance_adj. However, do not allow a greater
> > +			 * imbalance than the child domains weight to avoid
> > +			 * a case where the allowed imbalance spans multiple
> > +			 * LLCs.
> > +			 */
> 
> That comment is a wee misleading, @child is not an LLC per se. This
> could be the NUMA distance 2 domain, in which case @child is the NUMA
> distance 1 group.
> 
> That said, even then it probably makes sense to ensure you don't idle a
> whole smaller distance group.
> 

I hadn't considered that case but even then, it's just a comment fix.
Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs