| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201026124724.GT2611@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:47:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
benbjiang@...cent.com,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 -tip 08/26] sched/fair: Snapshot the min_vruntime of
CPUs on force idle
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 09:43:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> @@ -4723,6 +4714,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> }
>
> + /* Reset the snapshot if core is no longer in force-idle. */
> + if (!fi_before) {
> + for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> + struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> + rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime_fi = rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime;
> + }
> + }
So this is the thing that drags vruntime_fi along when (both?) siblings
are active, right? But should we not do that after pick? Consider 2
tasks a weight 1 and a weight 10 task, one for each sibling. By syncing
the vruntime before picking, the cfs_prio_less() loop will not be able
to distinguish between these two, since they'll both have effectively
the same lag.
If however, you syn after pick, then the weight 1 task will have accreud
far more runtime than the weight 10 task, and consequently the weight 10
task will have preference when a decision will have to be made.
(also, if this were the right place, the whole thing should've been part
of the for_each_cpu() loop right before this)
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 56bea0decda1..9cae08c3fca1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10686,6 +10686,46 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
> __entity_slice_used(&curr->se, MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
> resched_curr(rq);
> }
> +
> +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> +{
> + bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
> + struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
> + struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqa;
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqb;
> + s64 delta;
> +
> + if (samecpu) {
> + /* vruntime is per cfs_rq */
> + while (!is_same_group(sea, seb)) {
> + int sea_depth = sea->depth;
> + int seb_depth = seb->depth;
> + if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
> + sea = parent_entity(sea);
> + if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
> + seb = parent_entity(seb);
> + }
> +
> + delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* crosscpu: compare root level se's vruntime to decide priority */
> + while (sea->parent)
> + sea = sea->parent;
> + while (seb->parent)
> + seb = seb->parent;
This seems unfortunate, I think we can do better.
> +
> + cfs_rqa = sea->cfs_rq;
> + cfs_rqb = seb->cfs_rq;
> +
> + /* normalize vruntime WRT their rq's base */
> + delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime) +
> + (s64)(cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi);
> +out:
> + return delta > 0;
> +}
How's something like this?
- after each pick, such that the pick itself sees the divergence (see
above); either:
- pull the vruntime_fi forward, when !fi
- freeze the vruntime_fi, when newly fi (A)
- either way, update vruntime_fi for each cfs_rq in the active
hierachy.
- when comparing, and fi, update the vruntime_fi hierachy until we
encounter a mark from (A), per doing it during the pick, but before
runtime, this guaranteees it hasn't moved since (A).
XXX, still buggered on SMT>2, imagine having {ta, tb, fi, i} on an SMT4,
then when comparing any two tasks that do not involve the fi, we should
(probably) have pulled them fwd -- but we can't actually pull them,
because then the fi thing would break, mooo.
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -115,19 +115,8 @@ static inline bool prio_less(struct task
if (pa == -1) /* dl_prio() doesn't work because of stop_class above */
return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline);
- if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE) { /* fair */
- u64 vruntime = b->se.vruntime;
-
- /*
- * Normalize the vruntime if tasks are in different cpus.
- */
- if (task_cpu(a) != task_cpu(b)) {
- vruntime -= task_cfs_rq(b)->min_vruntime;
- vruntime += task_cfs_rq(a)->min_vruntime;
- }
-
- return !((s64)(a->se.vruntime - vruntime) <= 0);
- }
+ if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE) /* fair */
+ return cfs_prio_less(a, b);
return false;
}
@@ -4642,12 +4631,15 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sc
return cookie_pick;
}
+extern void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);
+
static struct task_struct *
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;
+ bool fi_before = false;
bool need_sync;
int i, j, cpu;
@@ -4707,6 +4699,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
need_sync = !!rq->core->core_cookie;
if (rq->core->core_forceidle) {
need_sync = true;
+ fi_before = true;
rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
}
@@ -4757,6 +4750,11 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
continue;
rq_i->core_pick = p;
+ if (rq_i->idle == p && rq_i->nr_running) {
+ rq->core->core_forceidle = true;
+ if (!fi_before)
+ rq->core->core_forceidle_seq++;
+ }
/*
* If this new candidate is of higher priority than the
@@ -4775,6 +4773,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
max = p;
if (old_max) {
+ rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
if (j == i)
continue;
@@ -4823,10 +4822,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
if (!rq_i->core_pick)
continue;
- if (is_task_rq_idle(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running &&
- !rq_i->core->core_forceidle) {
- rq_i->core->core_forceidle = true;
- }
+ if (!(fi_before && rq->core->core_forceidle))
+ task_vruntime_update(rq_i, rq_i->core_pick);
if (i == cpu) {
rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -10686,6 +10686,67 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct
__entity_slice_used(&curr->se, MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
resched_curr(rq);
}
+
+static void se_fi_update(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned int fi_seq, bool forceidle)
+{
+ for_each_sched_entity(se) {
+ struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
+
+ if (forceidle) {
+ if (cfs_rq->forceidle_seq == fi_seq)
+ break;
+ cfs_rq->forceidle_seq = fi_seq;
+ }
+
+ cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
+ }
+}
+
+void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
+
+ if (p->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
+ return;
+
+ se_fi_update(se, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, rq->core->core_forceidle);
+}
+
+bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
+{
+ struct rq *rq = task_rq(a);
+ struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
+ struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
+ struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqa;
+ struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqb;
+ s64 delta;
+
+ SCHED_WARN_ON(task_rq(b)->core != rq->core);
+
+ while (sea->cfs_rq->tg != seb->cfs_rq->tg) {
+ int sea_depth = sea->depth;
+ int seb_depth = seb->depth;
+
+ if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
+ sea = parent_entity(sea);
+ if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
+ seb = parent_entity(seb);
+ }
+
+ if (rq->core->core_forceidle) {
+ se_fi_update(sea, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, true);
+ se_fi_update(seb, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, true);
+ }
+
+ cfs_rqa = sea->cfs_rq;
+ cfs_rqb = seb->cfs_rq;
+
+ /* normalize vruntime WRT their rq's base */
+ delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime) +
+ (s64)(cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi);
+
+ return delta > 0;
+}
#else
static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr) {}
#endif
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -522,6 +522,11 @@ struct cfs_rq {
unsigned int h_nr_running; /* SCHED_{NORMAL,BATCH,IDLE} */
unsigned int idle_h_nr_running; /* SCHED_IDLE */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+ unsigned int forceidle_seq;
+ u64 min_vruntime_fi;
+#endif
+
u64 exec_clock;
u64 min_vruntime;
#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
@@ -1061,7 +1066,8 @@ struct rq {
unsigned int core_task_seq;
unsigned int core_pick_seq;
unsigned long core_cookie;
- unsigned char core_forceidle;
+ unsigned int core_forceidle;
+ unsigned int core_forceidle_seq;
#endif
};
@@ -1106,6 +1112,8 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(s
return &rq->__lock;
}
+bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b);
+
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
static inline bool sched_core_enabled(struct rq *rq)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists