linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: rt: Make RT capacity aware

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8868c5cf-e3f4-04e1-e071-0476ac813191@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 17:15:01 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: rt: Make RT capacity aware

On 03/02/2020 16:14, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:27:14 +0000
> Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't see one right answer here. The current mechanism could certainly do
>> better; but it's not clear what better means without delving into system
>> specific details. I am open to any suggestions to improve it.
> 
> The way I see this is that if there's no big cores available but little
> cores are, and the RT task has those cores in its affinity mask then
> the task most definitely should consider moving to the little core. The
> cpu_find() should return them!
> 
> But, what we can do is to mark the little core that's running an RT
> task on a it that prefers bigger cores, as "rt-overloaded".  This will
> add this core into the being looked at when another core schedules out
> an RT task. When that happens, the RT task on the little core will get
> pulled back to the big core.
> 

That sounds sensible enough - it's also very similar to what we have for
CFS, labeled under "misfit tasks" (i.e. tasks that are "too big" for
LITTLEs).

> 
> Note, this will require a bit more logic as the overloaded code wasn't
> designed for migration of running tasks, but that could be added.
> 

I haven't adventured too much within RT land, but FWIW that's what we use
the CPU stopper for in CFS (see active_load_balance_cpu_stop()).

> -- Steve
>