linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: reduce preemption with IDLE tasks runable(Internet mail)

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 11:26:29 +0000
From:   benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbjiang@...cent.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
CC:     Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        "mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: reduce preemption with IDLE tasks
 runable(Internet mail)



> On Aug 3, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/08/2020 04:32, Jiang Biao wrote:
>> From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
>> 
>> No need to preempt when there are only one runable CFS task with
>> other IDLE tasks on runqueue. The only one CFS task would always
>> be picked in that case.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 04fa8dbcfa4d..8fb80636b010 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -4527,7 +4527,7 @@ entity_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr, int queued)
>> 		return;
>> #endif
>> 
>> -	if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1)
>> +	if (cfs_rq->nr_running > cfs_rq.idle_h_nr_running + 1)
> 
> cfs_rq is a pointer.
It is. Sorry about that. :)

> 
>> 		check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);
>> }
> 
> You can't compare cfs_rq->nr_running with cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running!
> 
> There is a difference between cfs_rq->h_nr_running and
> cfs_rq->nr_running. The '_h_' stands for hierarchical.
> 
> The former gives you hierarchical task accounting whereas the latter is
> the number of sched entities (representing tasks or taskgroups) enqueued
> in cfs_rq.
> 
> In entity_tick(), cfs_rq->nr_running has to be used for the condition to
> call check_preempt_tick(). We want to check if curr has to be preempted
> by __pick_first_entity(cfs_rq) on this cfs_rq.
> 
> entity_tick() is called for each sched entity (and so for each
> cfs_rq_of(se)) of the task group hierarchy (e.g. task p running in
> taskgroup /A/B : se(p) -> se(A/B) -> se(A)).
That’s true. I was thinking adding a new cfs_rq->idle_nr_running member to
track the per cfs_rq's IDLE task number, and reducing preemption here based
on that. 
I’m not sure if it’s ok to do that, because the IDLE class seems not to be so
pure that could tolerate starving.
We need an absolutely low priority class that could tolerate starving, which
could be used to co-locate offline tasks. But IDLE class seems to be not
*low* enough, if considering the fairness of CFS, and IDLE class still has a
weight.

Thanks for you reply.

Regards,
Jiang