linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 0/4] Revisit NUMA imbalance tolerance and fork balancing

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:06:26 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] Revisit NUMA imbalance tolerance and fork balancing

Changelog since v2
o Build fix for !NUMA_BALANCING configurations

Changelog since v1
o Split out patch that moves imbalance calculation
o Strongly connect fork imbalance considerations with adjust_numa_imbalance

When NUMA and CPU balancing were reconciled, there was an attempt to allow
a degree of imbalance but it caused more problems than it solved. Instead,
imbalance was only allowed with an almost idle NUMA domain. A lot of the
problems have since been addressed so it's time for a revisit. There is
also an issue with how fork is balanced across threads. It's mentioned
in this context as patch 3 and 4 should share similar behaviour in terms
of a nodes utilisation.

Patch 1 is just a cosmetic rename

Patch 2 moves an imbalance calculation. It is both a micro-optimisation
	and avoids confusing what imbalance means for different group
	types.

Patch 3 allows a "floating" imbalance to exist so communicating tasks can
	remain on the same domain until utilisation is higher. It aims
	to balance compute availability with memory bandwidth.

Patch 4 is the interesting one. Currently fork can allow a NUMA node
	to be completely utilised as long as there are idle CPUs until
	the load balancer gets involved. This caused serious problems
	with a real workload that unfortunately I cannot share many
	details about but there is a proxy reproducer.

-- 
2.26.2

Mel Gorman (4):
  sched/numa: Rename nr_running and break out the magic number
  sched: Avoid unnecessary calculation of load imbalance at clone time
  sched/numa: Allow a floating imbalance between NUMA nodes
  sched: Limit the amount of NUMA imbalance that can exist at fork time

 kernel/sched/fair.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2