| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:28:54 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Douglas Shakshober <dshaks@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>, Bill Gray <bgray@...hat.com>,
riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load
balancer v6
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:41:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:38:16AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > IIUC, this patch front-loads as much work as possible before checking if
> > the task is on_rq and then the waker/wakee shares a cache, queue task on
> > the wake_list and otherwise do a direct wakeup.
> >
> > The advantage is that spinning is avoided on p->on_rq when p does not
> > share a cache. The disadvantage is that it may result in tasks being
> > stacked but this should only happen when the domain is overloaded and
> > select_task_eq() is unlikely to find an idle CPU. The load balancer would
> > soon correct the situation anyway.
> >
> > In terms of netperf for my testing, the benefit is marginal because the
> > wakeups are primarily between tasks that share cache. It does trigger as
> > perf indicates that some time is spent in ttwu_queue_remote with this
> > patch, it's just that the overall time spent spinning on p->on_rq is
> > very similar. I'm still waiting on other workloads to complete to see
> > what the impact is.
>
> So it might make sense to play with the exact conditions under which
> we'll attempt this remote queue, if we see a large 'local' p->on_cpu
> spin time, it might make sense to attempt the queue even in this case.
>
> We could for example change it to:
>
> if (REAC_ONCE(p->on_cpu) && ttwu_queue_remote(p, cpu, wake_flags | WF_ON_CPU))
> goto unlock;
>
> and then use that in ttwu_queue_remote() to differentiate between these
> two cases.
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> ttwu_queue(p, cpu, wake_flags);
Is something like this on top of your patch what you had in mind?
---8<---
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 987b8ecf2ee9..435ecf5820ee 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2330,13 +2330,19 @@ void scheduler_ipi(void)
irq_exit();
}
-static void __ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
+/*
+ * Queue a task on the target CPUs wake_list and wake the CPU via IPI if
+ * necessary. The wakee CPU on receipt of the IPI will queue the task
+ * via sched_ttwu_wakeup() for activation instead of the waking task
+ * activating and queueing the wakee.
+ */
+static void __ttwu_queue_wakelist(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
{
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
p->sched_remote_wakeup = !!(wake_flags & WF_MIGRATED);
- if (llist_add(&p->wake_entry, &cpu_rq(cpu)->wake_list)) {
+ if (llist_add(&p->wake_entry, &rq->wake_list)) {
if (!set_nr_if_polling(rq->idle))
smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
else
@@ -2373,12 +2379,23 @@ bool cpus_share_cache(int this_cpu, int that_cpu)
return per_cpu(sd_llc_id, this_cpu) == per_cpu(sd_llc_id, that_cpu);
}
-static bool ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
+static bool ttwu_queue_wakelist(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
{
- if (sched_feat(TTWU_QUEUE) && !cpus_share_cache(smp_processor_id(), cpu)) {
- sched_clock_cpu(cpu); /* Sync clocks across CPUs */
- __ttwu_queue_remote(p, cpu, wake_flags);
- return true;
+ if (sched_feat(TTWU_QUEUE)) {
+ /*
+ * If CPU does not share cache then queue the task on the remote
+ * rqs wakelist to avoid accessing remote data. Alternatively,
+ * if the task is descheduling and the only running task on the
+ * CPU then use the wakelist to offload the task activation to
+ * the CPU that will soon be idle so the waker can continue.
+ * nr_running is checked to avoid unnecessary task stacking.
+ */
+ if (!cpus_share_cache(smp_processor_id(), cpu) ||
+ ((wake_flags & WF_ON_RQ) && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)) {
+ sched_clock_cpu(cpu); /* Sync clocks across CPUs */
+ __ttwu_queue_wakelist(p, cpu, wake_flags);
+ return true;
+ }
}
return false;
@@ -2391,7 +2408,7 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
struct rq_flags rf;
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP)
- if (ttwu_queue_remote(p, cpu, wake_flags))
+ if (ttwu_queue_wakelist(p, cpu, wake_flags))
return;
#endif
@@ -2611,7 +2628,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
* let the waker make forward progress. This is safe because IRQs are
* disabled and the IPI will deliver after on_cpu is cleared.
*/
- if (READ_ONCE(p->on_cpu) && ttwu_queue_remote(p, cpu, wake_flags))
+ if (READ_ONCE(p->on_cpu) && ttwu_queue_wakelist(p, cpu, wake_flags | WF_ON_RQ))
goto unlock;
/*
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index db3a57675ccf..06297d1142a0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1688,7 +1688,8 @@ static inline int task_on_rq_migrating(struct task_struct *p)
*/
#define WF_SYNC 0x01 /* Waker goes to sleep after wakeup */
#define WF_FORK 0x02 /* Child wakeup after fork */
-#define WF_MIGRATED 0x4 /* Internal use, task got migrated */
+#define WF_MIGRATED 0x04 /* Internal use, task got migrated */
+#define WF_ON_RQ 0x08 /* Wakee is on_rq */
/*
* To aid in avoiding the subversion of "niceness" due to uneven distribution
Powered by blists - more mailing lists