linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] sched/topology: Define and assign sched

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: <jhjeept980t.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 02 Jul 2020 17:49:38 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] sched/topology: Define and assign sched_domain flag metadata


On 02/07/20 17:37, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 02 Jul 2020 at 17:25:41 (+0100), Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> It's actually pretty close to what happens with the LLC domain on SMP -
>> select_idle_sibling() doesn't look outside of it. The wake_affine() stuff
>> might steer the task towards a different LLC, but that's about it for
>> wakeups. We rely on load balancing (fork/exec, newidle, nohz and periodic)
>> to spread this further - and we would here too.
>
> Sure, but on SMP the search space in select_idle_sibling is always
> consistent -- you search within the LLC. With the fix you suggested,
> CPUs 0-3 will search within their LLCs, while CPU4 searches the entire
> system, which creates an imbalanced mess IMO.
>

Yeah, it is a mess.

> For affine wake-ups, you could migrate from CPU4 -> CPU0-3, but CPU0-3
> to CPU4 is not possible

AIU the wake_affine bits, you get to steer the wakeup towards the waking
CPU. So if the task previously ran on CPU0-3, wake_affine can make the
target CPU4 (waking CPU), so it would become a possible candidate.

But as you say, this thing is still an ugly asymmetric mess.

> so this asymmetry is almost guaranteed to
> actively create imbalance. And sure, the periodic load balancer ought to
> fix it, but really wake-up balance and periodic load balance should be
> pushing in the same direction and not fighting against each other.
>
> Anyways, enough bikeshedding for today, I'll try and have look at the
> rest of the series :)
>

Thanks!

> Cheers,
> Quentin