linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/4] sched/numa: replace runnable_load_avg by load

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:15:23 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] sched/numa: replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:02, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > Your test doesn't explicitly ensure that the 1 condition is met
> > > >
> > > > That being said, I'm not sure it's really a wrong thing ? I mean
> > > > load_balance will probably try to pull back some tasks on src but as
> > > > long as it is not a task with dst node as preferred node, it should
> > > > not be that harmfull
> > >
> > > My thinking was that if source has as many or more running tasks than
> > > the destination *after* the move that it's not harmful and does not add
> > > work for the load balancer.
> >
> > load_balancer will see an imbalance but fbq_classify_group/queue
> > should be there to prevent from pulling back tasks that are on the
> > preferred node but only other tasks
> >
>
> Yes, exactly. Between fbq_classify and migrate_degrades_locality, I'm
> expecting that the load balancer will only override NUMA balancing when
> there is no better option. When the imbalance check, I want to avoid
> the situation where NUMA balancing moves a task for locality, LB pulls
> it back for balance, NUMA retries the move etc because it's stupid. The
> locality matters but being continually dequeue/enqueue is unhelpful.
>
> While there might be grounds for relaxing the degree an imbalance is
> allowed across SD domains, I am avoiding looking in that direction again
> until the load balancer and NUMA balancer stop overriding each other for
> silly reasons (or the NUMA balancer fighting itself which can happen).

make sense

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs