linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under SIS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:33:00 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under
 SIS_PROP

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:07:11PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/12/9 17:05, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:28:11PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>>>                         nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
> >>>>                 else
> >>>>                         nr = 4;
> >>>> -       }
> >>>> -
> >>>> -       time = cpu_clock(this);
> >>>>
> >>>> -       cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
> >>>> +               time = cpu_clock(this);
> >>>> +       }
> >>>>
> >>>>         for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
> >>>>                 if (!--nr)
> >>
> >> nr is the key of this throttling mechanism, need to be placed under sched_feat(SIS_PROP) as well.
> >>
> > 
> > It isn't necessary as nr in initialised to INT_MAX if !SIS_PROP.
> >If !SIS_PROP, nr need to -1 then tested in the loop, instead of testing directly.
> But with SIS_PROP, need adding a test in the loop.
> Since SIS_PROP is default true, I think it's okay to keep the current way.
> 

It's because it's default true and the cost is negligible that I'm leaving
it alone. The branch cost and nr accounting cost is negligible and it
avoids peppering select_idle_cpu() with too many SIS_PROP checks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs