linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/topology: fix the issue groups don't span domain->span for NUMA diameter

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:10:49 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxarm@...neuler.org, "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...wei.com>,
        "Liguozhu (Kenneth)" <liguozhu@...ilicon.com>,
        tiantao6@...ilicon.com, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
        Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/topology: fix the issue groups don't span
 domain->span for NUMA diameter > 2

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 12:46, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>
> On 09/02/21 10:46, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 09:27, Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com> wrote:
> >> Real servers which suffer from this problem include Kunpeng920 and 8-node
> >> Sun Fire X4600-M2, at least.
> >>
> >> Here we move to use the *child* domain of the *child* domain of node2's
> >> domain2 as the new added sched_group. At the same, we re-use the lower
> >> level sgc directly.
> >
> > Have you evaluated the impact on the imbalance and next_update fields ?
> >
>
> sgc->next_update is safe since it's only touched by CPUs that have the
> group span as local group (which is never the case for CPUs where we do
> this "grandchildren" trick).

It would be good to explain this in the commit message

>
> I'm a bit less clear about sgc->imbalance. I think it can be set by remote
> CPUs, but it should only be cleared when running load_balance() by CPUs
> that have that group span as local group, as per:
>
>   int *group_imbalance = &sd_parent->groups->sgc->imbalance;

We are also safe because sd_parent remains the same as the beg of
load_balance and LB only tries other CPUs from the local group