| 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: <20201208153501.1467-4-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:35:00 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Do not replace recent_used_cpu with the new target
After select_idle_sibling, p->recent_used_cpu is set to the
new target. However on the next wakeup, prev will be the same as
recent_used_cpu unless the load balancer has moved the task since the last
wakeup. It still works, but is less efficient than it can be after all
the changes that went in since that reduce unnecessary migrations, load
balancer changes etc. This patch preserves recent_used_cpu for longer.
With tbench on a 2-socket CascadeLake machine, 80 logical CPUs, HT enabled
5.10.0-rc6 5.10.0-rc6
baseline-v2 altrecent-v2
Hmean 1 508.39 ( 0.00%) 502.05 * -1.25%*
Hmean 2 986.70 ( 0.00%) 983.65 * -0.31%*
Hmean 4 1914.55 ( 0.00%) 1920.24 * 0.30%*
Hmean 8 3702.37 ( 0.00%) 3663.96 * -1.04%*
Hmean 16 6573.11 ( 0.00%) 6545.58 * -0.42%*
Hmean 32 10142.57 ( 0.00%) 10253.73 * 1.10%*
Hmean 64 14348.40 ( 0.00%) 12506.31 * -12.84%*
Hmean 128 21842.59 ( 0.00%) 21967.13 * 0.57%*
Hmean 256 20813.75 ( 0.00%) 21534.52 * 3.46%*
Hmean 320 20684.33 ( 0.00%) 21070.14 * 1.87%*
The different was marginal except for 64 threads which showed in the
baseline that the result was very unstable where as the patch was much
more stable. This is somewhat machine specific as on a separate 80-cpu
Broadwell machine the same test reported.
5.10.0-rc6 5.10.0-rc6
baseline-v2 altrecent-v2
Hmean 1 310.36 ( 0.00%) 291.81 * -5.98%*
Hmean 2 340.86 ( 0.00%) 547.22 * 60.54%*
Hmean 4 912.29 ( 0.00%) 1063.21 * 16.54%*
Hmean 8 2116.40 ( 0.00%) 2103.60 * -0.60%*
Hmean 16 4232.90 ( 0.00%) 4362.92 * 3.07%*
Hmean 32 8442.03 ( 0.00%) 8642.10 * 2.37%*
Hmean 64 11733.91 ( 0.00%) 11473.66 * -2.22%*
Hmean 128 17727.24 ( 0.00%) 16784.23 * -5.32%*
Hmean 256 16089.23 ( 0.00%) 16110.79 * 0.13%*
Hmean 320 15992.60 ( 0.00%) 16071.64 * 0.49%*
schedstats were not used in this series but from an earlier debugging
effort, the schedstats after the test run were as follows;
Ops SIS Search 5653107942.00 5726545742.00
Ops SIS Domain Search 3365067916.00 3319768543.00
Ops SIS Scanned 112173512543.00 99194352541.00
Ops SIS Domain Scanned 109885472517.00 96787575342.00
Ops SIS Failures 2923185114.00 2950166441.00
Ops SIS Recent Used Hit 56547.00 118064916.00
Ops SIS Recent Used Miss 1590899250.00 354942791.00
Ops SIS Recent Attempts 1590955797.00 473007707.00
Ops SIS Search Efficiency 5.04 5.77
Ops SIS Domain Search Eff 3.06 3.43
Ops SIS Fast Success Rate 40.47 42.03
Ops SIS Success Rate 48.29 48.48
Ops SIS Recent Success Rate 0.00 24.96
First interesting point is the ridiculous number of times runqueues are
enabled -- almost 97 billion times over the course of 40 minutes
With the patch, "Recent Used Hit" is over 2000 times more likely to
succeed. The failure rate also increases by quite a lot but the cost is
marginal even if the "Fast Success Rate" only increases by 2% overall. What
cannot be observed from these stats is where the biggest impact as these
stats cover low utilisation to over saturation.
If graphed over time, the graphs show that the sched domain is only
scanned at negligible rates until the machine is fully busy. With
low utilisation, the "Fast Success Rate" is almost 100% until the
machine is fully busy. For 320 clients, the success rate is close to
0% which is unsurprising.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +--------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 5c41875aec23..413d895bbbf8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6277,17 +6277,13 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
/* Check a recently used CPU as a potential idle candidate: */
recent_used_cpu = p->recent_used_cpu;
+ p->recent_used_cpu = prev;
if (recent_used_cpu != prev &&
recent_used_cpu != target &&
cpus_share_cache(recent_used_cpu, target) &&
(available_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(recent_used_cpu)) &&
cpumask_test_cpu(p->recent_used_cpu, p->cpus_ptr) &&
asym_fits_capacity(task_util, recent_used_cpu)) {
- /*
- * Replace recent_used_cpu with prev as it is a potential
- * candidate for the next wake:
- */
- p->recent_used_cpu = prev;
return recent_used_cpu;
}
@@ -6768,9 +6764,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
} else if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) { /* XXX always ? */
/* Fast path */
new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu, new_cpu);
-
- if (want_affine)
- current->recent_used_cpu = cpu;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
--
2.26.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists