linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

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: <20201021170050.GI32041@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:00:50 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 05:19:53PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 17:08, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 03:24:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > I worry it's overkill because prev is always used if it is idle even
> > > > if it is on a node remote to the waker. It cuts off the option of a
> > > > wakee moving to a CPU local to the waker which is not equivalent to the
> > > > original behaviour.
> > >
> > > But it is equal to the original behavior in the idle prev case if you go
> > > back to the runnable load average days...
> > >
> >
> > It is similar but it misses the sync treatment and sd->imbalance_pct part of
> > wake_affine_weight which has unpredictable consequences. The data
> > available is only on the fully utilised case.
> 
> In fact It's the same because runnable_load_avg was null when cpu is idle, so
> if prev_cpu was idle, we were selecting prev_idle
> 

Sync wakeups may only consider this_cpu and the load of the waker but
in that case, it was probably selected already by the sync check in
wake_affine_idle which will pass except when the domain is overloaded.
Fair enough, I'll withdraw any concerns. It could have done with a
comment :/

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs