linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/rt: Distribute tasks in find_lowest

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: <jhjv9ltkmel.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:18:10 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     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>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/rt: Distribute tasks in find_lowest_rq()

On 21/04/20 13:13, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 04/14/20 19:58, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> I'm a bit wary about such blanket changes. I feel like most places impacted
>> by this change don't gain anything by using the random thing. In sched land
>> that would be:
>
> The API has always been clear that cpumask_any return a random cpu within the
> mask. And the fact it's a one liner with cpumask_first() directly visible,
> a user made the choice to stick to cpumask_any() indicates that that's what
> they wanted.
>
> Probably a lot of them they don't care what cpu is returned and happy with the
> random value. I don't see why it has to have an effect. Some could benefit,
> like my use case here. Or others truly don't care, then it's fine to return
> anything, as requested.
>

Exactly, *some* (which AFAICT is a minority) might benefit. So why should
all the others pay the price for a functionality they do not need?

I don't think your change would actually cause a splat somewhere; my point
is about changing existing behaviour without having a story for it. The
thing said 'pick a "random" cpu', sure, but it never did that, it always
picked the first.

I've pointed out two examples that want to be cpumask_first(), and I'm
absolutely certain there are more than these two out there. What if folks
ran some performance test and were completely fine with the _first()
behaviour? What tells you randomness won't degrade some cases?

IMO the correct procedure is to keep everything as it is and improve the
specific callsites that benefit from randomness. I get your point that
using cpumask_any() should be a good enough indicator of the latter, but I
don't think it can realistically be followed. To give my PoV, if in the
past someone had used a cpumask_any() where a cpumask_first() could do, I
would've acked it (disclaimer: super representative population of sample
size = 1).

Flipping the switch on everyone to then have a series of patches "oh this
one didn't need it", "this one neither", "I actually need this to be the
first" just feels sloppy.

> I CCed Marc who's the maintainer of this file who can clarify better if this
> really breaks anything.
>
> If any interrupt expects to be affined to a specific CPU then this must be
> described in DT/driver. I think the GIC controller is free to distribute them
> to any cpu otherwise if !force. Which is usually done by irq_balancer anyway
> in userspace, IIUC.
>
> I don't see how cpumask_any_and() break anything here too. I actually think it
> improves on things by better distribute the irqs on the system by default.
>

As you say, if someone wants smarter IRQ affinity they can do irq_balancer
and whatnot. The default kernel policy for now has been to shove everything
on the lowest-numbered CPU, and I see no valid reason to change that.