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  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]
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 22:35:56 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     vpillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     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>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.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 07:14:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:59:57PM +0000, vpillai wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > 
> > Instead of only selecting a local task, select a task for all SMT
> > siblings for every reschedule on the core (irrespective which logical
> > CPU does the reschedule).
> > 
> > There could be races in core scheduler where a CPU is trying to pick
> > a task for its sibling in core scheduler, when that CPU has just been
> > offlined.  We should not schedule any tasks on the CPU in this case.
> > Return an idle task in pick_next_task for this situation.
> > 
> > NOTE: there is still potential for siblings rivalry.
> > NOTE: this is far too complicated; but thus far I've failed to
> >       simplify it further.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/core.c  | 274 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c  |  40 +++++++
> >  kernel/sched/sched.h |   6 +-
> >  3 files changed, 318 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 445f0d519336..9a1bd236044e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4253,7 +4253,7 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev, bool preempt)
> >   * Pick up the highest-prio task:
> >   */
> >  static inline struct task_struct *
> > -pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> > +__pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >  {
> >  	const struct sched_class *class;
> >  	struct task_struct *p;
> > @@ -4309,6 +4309,273 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >  	BUG();
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> > +
> > +static inline bool cookie_equals(struct task_struct *a, unsigned long cookie)
> > +{
> > +	return is_idle_task(a) || (a->core_cookie == cookie);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> > +{
> > +	if (is_idle_task(a) || is_idle_task(b))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	return a->core_cookie == b->core_cookie;
> > +}
> > +
> > +// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
> > +/*
> > + * Returns
> > + * - NULL if there is no runnable task for this class.
> > + * - the highest priority task for this runqueue if it matches
> > + *   rq->core->core_cookie or its priority is greater than max.
> > + * - Else returns idle_task.
> > + */
> > +static struct task_struct *
> > +pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
> > +	unsigned long cookie = rq->core->core_cookie;
> > +
> > +	class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
> > +	if (!class_pick)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	if (!cookie) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If class_pick is tagged, return it only if it has
> > +		 * higher priority than max.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (max && class_pick->core_cookie &&
> > +		    prio_less(class_pick, max))
> > +			return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
> > +
> > +		return class_pick;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If class_pick is idle or matches cookie, return early.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (cookie_equals(class_pick, cookie))
> > +		return class_pick;
> > +
> > +	cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
> > +	 * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
> > +	 * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) &&
> > +	    (!max || prio_less(max, class_pick)))
> > +		return class_pick;
> > +
> > +	return cookie_pick;
> > +}
> 
> I've been hating on this pick_task() routine for a while now :-). If we add
> the task to the tag tree as Peter suggested at OSPM for that other issue
> Vineeth found, it seems it could be simpler.
> 
> This has just been near a compiler so far but how about:

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.

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);
 }
 
@@ -4556,43 +4553,57 @@ void sched_core_irq_exit(void)
 static struct task_struct *
 pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
 {
-	struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
+	struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick, *rq_pick;
 	unsigned long cookie = rq->core->core_cookie;
 
 	class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
 	if (!class_pick)
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (!cookie) {
-		/*
-		 * If class_pick is tagged, return it only if it has
-		 * higher priority than max.
-		 */
-		if (max && class_pick->core_cookie &&
-		    prio_less(class_pick, max))
-			return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
+	if (!max)
+		return class_pick;
+
+	/* Make sure the current max's cookie is core->core_cookie */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(max->core_cookie != cookie);
 
+	/* Try to play really nice: see if the class's cookie works. */
+	if (cookie_equals(class_pick, cookie))
 		return class_pick;
-	}
 
 	/*
-	 * If class_pick is idle or matches cookie, return early.
+	 * From here on, we must return class_pick, cookie_pick or idle.
+	 * Following are the cases:
+	 * 1 - lowest prio.
+	 * 3 - highest prio.
+	 *
+	 * max	class	cookie	outcome
+	 * 1	2	3	cookie
+	 * 1	3	2	class
+	 * 2	1	3	cookie
+	 * 2	3	1	class
+	 * 3	1	2	cookie
+	 * 3	2	1	cookie
+	 * 3	2	-	return idle (when no cookie task).
 	 */
-	if (cookie_equals(class_pick, cookie))
-		return class_pick;
 
+	/* First try to find the highest prio of (cookie, class and max). */
 	cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
+	if (cookie_pick && prio_less(class_pick, cookie_pick))
+		rq_pick = cookie_pick;
+	else
+		rq_pick = class_pick;
+	if (prio_less(max, rq_pick))
+		return rq_pick;
+
+	/* If we max was greatest, then see if there was a cookie. */
+	if (cookie_pick)
+		return cookie_pick;
 
 	/*
-	 * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
-	 * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
-	 * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
+	 * We get here with if class_pick was incompatible with max
+	 * and lower prio than max. So we have nothing.
 	 */
-	if (prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) &&
-	    (!max || prio_less(max, class_pick)))
-		return class_pick;
-
-	return cookie_pick;
+	return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
 }
 
 static struct task_struct *

Powered by blists - more mailing lists