| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:36:10 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 14/32] sched: migration changes for core scheduling
On 2020/11/23 7:54, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
>>
>> - Don't migrate if there is a cookie mismatch
>> Load balance tries to move task from busiest CPU to the
>> destination CPU. When core scheduling is enabled, if the
>> task's cookie does not match with the destination CPU's
>> core cookie, this task will be skipped by this CPU. This
>> mitigates the forced idle time on the destination CPU.
>>
>> - Select cookie matched idle CPU
>> In the fast path of task wakeup, select the first cookie matched
>> idle CPU instead of the first idle CPU.
>>
>> - Find cookie matched idlest CPU
>> In the slow path of task wakeup, find the idlest CPU whose core
>> cookie matches with task's cookie
>>
>> - Don't migrate task if cookie not match
>> For the NUMA load balance, don't migrate task to the CPU whose
>> core cookie does not match with task's cookie
>>
>> Tested-by: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index de82f88ba98c..ceb3906c9a8a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1921,6 +1921,15 @@ static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
>> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, env->p->cpus_ptr))
>> continue;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> + /*
>> + * Skip this cpu if source task's cookie does not match
>> + * with CPU's core cookie.
>> + */
>> + if (!sched_core_cookie_match(cpu_rq(cpu), env->p))
>> + continue;
>> +#endif
>> +
>
> Any reason this is under an #ifdef? In sched_core_cookie_match() won't
> the check for sched_core_enabled() do the right thing even when
> CONFIG_SCHED_CORE is not enabed?>
Yes, sched_core_enabled works properly when CONFIG_SCHED_CORE is not
enabled. But when CONFIG_SCHED_CORE is not enabled, it does not make
sense to leave a core scheduler specific function here even at compile
time. Also, for the cases in hot path, this saves CPU cycles to avoid
a judgment.
>> env->dst_cpu = cpu;
>> if (task_numa_compare(env, taskimp, groupimp, maymove))
>> break;
>> @@ -5867,11 +5876,17 @@ find_idlest_group_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this
>>
>> /* Traverse only the allowed CPUs */
>> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_span(group), p->cpus_ptr) {
>> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> + if (!sched_core_cookie_match(rq, p))
>> + continue;
>> +#endif
>> +
>> if (sched_idle_cpu(i))
>> return i;
>>
>> if (available_idle_cpu(i)) {
>> - struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>> struct cpuidle_state *idle = idle_get_state(rq);
>> if (idle && idle->exit_latency < min_exit_latency) {
>> /*
>> @@ -6129,8 +6144,18 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>> for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
>> if (!--nr)
>> return -1;
>> - if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
>> - break;
>> +
>> + if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> + /*
>> + * If Core Scheduling is enabled, select this cpu
>> + * only if the process cookie matches core cookie.
>> + */
>> + if (sched_core_enabled(cpu_rq(cpu)) &&
>> + p->core_cookie == cpu_rq(cpu)->core->core_cookie)
>> +#endif
>> + break;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> time = cpu_clock(this) - time;
>> @@ -7530,8 +7555,9 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>> * We do not migrate tasks that are:
>> * 1) throttled_lb_pair, or
>> * 2) cannot be migrated to this CPU due to cpus_ptr, or
>> - * 3) running (obviously), or
>> - * 4) are cache-hot on their current CPU.
>> + * 3) task's cookie does not match with this CPU's core cookie
>> + * 4) running (obviously), or
>> + * 5) are cache-hot on their current CPU.
>> */
>> if (throttled_lb_pair(task_group(p), env->src_cpu, env->dst_cpu))
>> return 0;
>> @@ -7566,6 +7592,15 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> + /*
>> + * Don't migrate task if the task's cookie does not match
>> + * with the destination CPU's core cookie.
>> + */
>> + if (!sched_core_cookie_match(cpu_rq(env->dst_cpu), p))
>> + return 0;
>> +#endif
>> +
>> /* Record that we found atleast one task that could run on dst_cpu */
>> env->flags &= ~LBF_ALL_PINNED;
>>
>> @@ -8792,6 +8827,25 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>> p->cpus_ptr))
>> continue;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>> + if (sched_core_enabled(cpu_rq(this_cpu))) {
>> + int i = 0;
>> + bool cookie_match = false;
>> +
>> + for_each_cpu(i, sched_group_span(group)) {
>> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>> +
>> + if (sched_core_cookie_match(rq, p)) {
>> + cookie_match = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + /* Skip over this group if no cookie matched */
>> + if (!cookie_match)
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +#endif
>> +
>> local_group = cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu,
>> sched_group_span(group));
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> index e72942a9ee11..de553d39aa40 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> @@ -1135,6 +1135,35 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
>>
>> bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b);
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Helper to check if the CPU's core cookie matches with the task's cookie
>> + * when core scheduling is enabled.
>> + * A special case is that the task's cookie always matches with CPU's core
>> + * cookie if the CPU is in an idle core.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> + bool idle_core = true;
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + /* Ignore cookie match if core scheduler is not enabled on the CPU. */
>> + if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(cpu_of(rq))) {
>> + if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
>
> I was looking at this snippet and comparing this to is_core_idle(), the
> major difference is the check for vcpu_is_preempted(). Do we want to
> call the core as non idle if any vcpu was preempted on this CPU?
Yes, if there is a VCPU was preempted on this CPU, better not place task
on this core as the VCPU may be holding a spinlock and wants to be executed
again ASAP.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists