linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched/topology: NUMA topology limitations

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: <jhjmu29omw0.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 01 Sep 2020 10:40:47 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     "Song Bao Hua \(Barry Song\)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "vincent.guittot\@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "dietmar.eggemann\@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        "morten.rasmussen\@arm.com" <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched/topology: NUMA topology limitations


On 31/08/20 11:45, Barry Song wrote:
>> From: Valentin Schneider [mailto:valentin.schneider@....com]
>>
>> Ignoring corner cases where task affinity gets in the way, load balance
>> will always pull tasks to the local CPU (i.e. the CPU who's sched_domain we
>> are working on).
>>
>> If we're balancing load for CPU0-domain1, we would be looking at which CPUs
>> in [0-2] (i.e. the domain's span) we could (if we should) pull tasks from
>> to migrate them over to CPU0.
>>
>> We'll first try to figure out which sched_group has the more load (see
>> find_busiest_group() & friends), and that's where we may hit issues.
>>
>> Consider a scenario where CPU3 is noticeably busier than the other
>> CPUs. We'll end up marking CPU0-domain1-group2 (1-3) as the busiest group,
>> and compute an imbalance (i.e. amount of load to pull) mostly based on the
>> status of CPU3.
>>
>> We'll then go to find_busiest_queue(); the mask of CPUs we iterate over is
>> restricted by the sched_domain_span (i.e. doesn't include CPU3 here), so
>> we'll pull things from either CPU1 or CPU2 based on stats we built looking
>> at CPU3, which is bound to be pretty bogus.
>>
>> To summarise: we won't pull from the "outsider" node(s) (i.e., nodes
>> included in the sched_groups but not covered by the sched_domain), but they
>> will influence the stats and heuristics of the load balance.
>
> Hi Valentin,
> Thanks for your clarification. For many scenarios, to achieve good performance, people would
> pin processes in numa node. So the priority to pin would be local node first, then domain0 with one hop. Domain1
> with two hops is actually too far. Domain2 with three hops would be a disaster. If cpu0 pulls task from cpu2,
> but memory is still one CPU2's node, 3 hops would be a big problem for memory access and page migration.
>

Did you mean CPU3 here?

> However, for automatic numa balance, I would agree we need to fix the groups layout to make groups
> stay in the span of sched_domain. Otherwise, it seems the scheduler is running incorrectly to find the right
> cpu to pull task.
>
> In case we have
> 0 task on cpu0
> 1 task on cpu1
> 1 task on cpu2
> 4 task on cpu3
>
> In sched_domain1, cpu1+cpu3 is busy, so cpu0 would try to pull task from cpu2 of the group(1-3) because cpu3 is busy,
> meanwhile, it is an outsider.
>

Right, we'd pull from either CPU1 or CPU2 (in this case via a tentative
active load balance) because they are in the same group as CPU3 which
inflates the sched_group load stats, but we can't pull from it at this
domain because it's not included in the domain span.

> Thanks
> Barry