linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v7] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask for task wakeup

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

Message-ID: <20201211221905.GV3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 23:19:05 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com, qais.yousef@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask for
 task wakeup

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 08:43:37PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> One bug is in __select_idle_core() though. It's scanning the SMT mask,
> not select_idle_mask so it can return an idle candidate that is not in
> p->cpus_ptr.

D'0h.. luckily the benchmarks don't hit that :-)

> There are some other potential caveats.
> 
> This is a single pass so when test_idle_cores() is true, __select_idle_core
> is used to to check all the siblings even if the core is not idle. That
> could have been cut short if __select_idle_core checked *idle_cpu ==
> 1 and terminated the SMT scan if an idle candidate had already been found.

So I did that on purpose, so as to track the last/most-recent idle cpu,
with the thinking that that cpu has the higher chance of still being
idle vs one we checked earlier/longer-ago.

I suppose we benchmark both and see which is liked best.

> Second downside is related. If test_idle_cpus() was true but no idle
> CPU is found then __select_idle_core has been called enough to scan
> the entire domain. In this corner case, the new code does *more* work
> because the old code would have failed select_idle_core() quickly and
> then select_idle_cpu() would be throttled by SIS_PROP. I think this will
> only be noticable in the heavily overloaded case but if the corner case
> hits enough then the new code will be slower than the old code for the
> over-saturated case (i.e. hackbench with lots of groups).

Right, due to scanning siblings, even if the first inspected thread is
not idle, we scan more.

> The third potential downside is that the SMT sibling is not guaranteed to
> be checked due to SIS_PROP throttling but in the old code, that would have
> been checked by select_idle_smt(). That might result in premature stacking
> of runnable tasks on the same CPU. Similarly, as __select_idle_core may
> find multiple idle candidates, it will not pick the targets SMT sibling
> if it is idle like select_idle_smt would have.
> 
> That said, I am skeptical that select_idle_smt() matters all that often.

This, I didn't really believe in it either.


The benchmarks I started are mostly noise, with a few wins for
TCP_STREAM and UDP_RR around the 50% mark. Although I should run
longer variants to make sure.