linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling.

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: <20200522034406.GC6339@aaronlu-desktop>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 11:44:06 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     vpillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and
 scheduling.

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:35:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Discussed a lot with Vineeth. Below is an improved version of the pick_task()
> similification.
> 
> It also handles the following "bug" in the existing code as well that Vineeth
> brought up in OSPM: Suppose 2 siblings of a core: rq 1 and rq 2.
> 
> In priority order (high to low), say we have the tasks:
> A - untagged  (rq 1)
> B - tagged    (rq 2)
> C - untagged  (rq 2)
> 
> Say, B and C are in the same scheduling class.
> 
> When the pick_next_task() loop runs, it looks at rq 1 and max is A, A is
> tenantively selected for rq 1. Then it looks at rq 2 and the class_pick is B.
> But that's not compatible with A. So rq 2 gets forced idle.
> 
> In reality, rq 2 could have run C instead of idle. The fix is to add C to the
> tag tree as Peter suggested in OSPM.

I like the idea of adding untagged task to the core tree.

> Updated diff below:
> 
> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 005d7f7323e2d..625377f393ed3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -182,9 +182,6 @@ static void sched_core_enqueue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  	rq->core->core_task_seq++;
>  
> -	if (!p->core_cookie)
> -		return;
> -
>  	node = &rq->core_tree.rb_node;
>  	parent = *node;
>  
> @@ -215,7 +212,7 @@ static void sched_core_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  void sched_core_add(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  {
> -	if (p->core_cookie && task_on_rq_queued(p))
> +	if (task_on_rq_queued(p))
>  		sched_core_enqueue(rq, p);
>  }

It appears there are other call sites of sched_core_enqueue() where
core_cookie is checked: cpu_cgroup_fork() and __sched_write_tag().