| 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: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:06:53 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbjiang@...cent.com>,
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <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" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com" <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kerrnel@...gle.com" <kerrnel@...gle.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"vineethrp@...il.com" <vineethrp@...il.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer(Internet
mail)
On 2020/7/20 12:06, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 5:32 AM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>
>> When a sibling is forced-idle to match the core-cookie; search for
>> matching tasks to fill the core.
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent deadlock in
>> sched_core_balance(). Fix this by using the RCU-sched flavor instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>> ---
>> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> kernel/sched/idle.c | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 ++
>> 4 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index 3c8dcc5ff039..4f9edf013df3 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -688,6 +688,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> struct rb_node core_node;
>> unsigned long core_cookie;
>> + unsigned int core_occupation;
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 4d6d6a678013..fb9edb09ead7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -201,6 +201,21 @@ static struct task_struct *sched_core_find(struct rq *rq, unsigned long cookie)
>> return match;
>> }
>>
>> +static struct task_struct *sched_core_next(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long cookie)
>> +{
>> + struct rb_node *node = &p->core_node;
>> +
>> + node = rb_next(node);
>> + if (!node)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + p = container_of(node, struct task_struct, core_node);
>> + if (p->core_cookie != cookie)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + return p;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * The static-key + stop-machine variable are needed such that:
>> *
>> @@ -4233,7 +4248,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>> struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
>> const struct sched_class *class;
>> const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
>> - int i, j, cpu;
>> + int i, j, cpu, occ = 0;
>> bool need_sync;
>>
>> if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
>> @@ -4332,6 +4347,9 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>> goto done;
>> }
>>
>> + if (!is_idle_task(p))
>> + occ++;
>> +
>> rq_i->core_pick = p;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -4357,6 +4375,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>>
>> cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = NULL;
>> }
>> + occ = 1;
>> goto again;
>> } else {
>> /*
>> @@ -4393,6 +4412,8 @@ next_class:;
>> if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running)
>> rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
>>
>> + rq_i->core_pick->core_occupation = occ;
>> +
>> if (i == cpu)
>> continue;
>>
>> @@ -4408,6 +4429,114 @@ next_class:;
>> return next;
>> }
>>
>> +static bool try_steal_cookie(int this, int that)
>> +{
>> + struct rq *dst = cpu_rq(this), *src = cpu_rq(that);
>> + struct task_struct *p;
>> + unsigned long cookie;
>> + bool success = false;
>> +
>> + local_irq_disable();
>> + double_rq_lock(dst, src);
>> +
>> + cookie = dst->core->core_cookie;
>> + if (!cookie)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + if (dst->curr != dst->idle)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + p = sched_core_find(src, cookie);
>> + if (p == src->idle)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + if (p == src->core_pick || p == src->curr)
>> + goto next;
>> +
>> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(this, &p->cpus_mask))
>> + goto next;
>> +
>> + if (p->core_occupation > dst->idle->core_occupation)
>> + goto next;
>> +
>> + p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING;
>> + deactivate_task(src, p, 0);
>> + set_task_cpu(p, this);
>> + activate_task(dst, p, 0);
>> + p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED;
>> +
>> + resched_curr(dst);
>> +
>> + success = true;
>> + break;
>> +
>> +next:
>> + p = sched_core_next(p, cookie);
>> + } while (p);
>> +
>> +unlock:
>> + double_rq_unlock(dst, src);
>> + local_irq_enable();
>> +
>> + return success;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool steal_cookie_task(int cpu, struct sched_domain *sd)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_cpu_wrap(i, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu) {
> Since (i == cpu) should be skipped, should we start iteration at cpu+1? like,
> for_each_cpu_wrap(i, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu+1) {
> …
> }
> In that way, we could avoid hitting following if(i == cpu) always.
IMHO, this won't work, as cpuid is not continuous.
>> + if (i == cpu)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (need_resched())
>> + break;
> Should we return true here to accelerate the breaking of sched_core_balance?
> Otherwise the breaking would be delayed to the next level sd iteration.
>> +
>> + if (try_steal_cookie(cpu, i))
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>> +{
>> + struct sched_domain *sd;
>> + int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock_sched();
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
>> + for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (need_resched())
>> + break;
> If rescheded here, we missed the chance to do further forced-newidle balance,
> and the idle-core could be idle for a long time, because lacking of pulling chance.
> Could it be possible to add a new forced-newidle balance chance in task_tick_idle?
> which could make it more efficient.
This flag indicates there is another thread deserves to run, So I guess the core won't
be idle for a long time.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
>
>> + if (steal_cookie_task(cpu, sd))
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + raw_spin_lock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
>> + rcu_read_unlock_sched();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct callback_head, core_balance_head);
>> +
>> +void queue_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>> +{
>> + if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!rq->core->core_cookie)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!rq->nr_running) /* not forced idle */
>> + return;
>> +
>> + queue_balance_callback(rq, &per_cpu(core_balance_head, rq->cpu), sched_core_balance);
>> +}
>> +
>> #else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
>>
>> static struct task_struct *
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> index a8d40ffab097..dff6ba220ed7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> @@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ static void set_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, bool fir
>> {
>> update_idle_core(rq);
>> schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
>> + queue_core_balance(rq);
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> index 293aa1ae0308..464559676fd2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> @@ -1089,6 +1089,8 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
>> bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b);
>> void sched_core_adjust_sibling_vruntime(int cpu, bool coresched_enabled);
>>
>> +extern void queue_core_balance(struct rq *rq);
>> +
>> #else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
>>
>> static inline bool sched_core_enabled(struct rq *rq)
>> @@ -1101,6 +1103,10 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
>> return &rq->__lock;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void queue_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists