linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7 v4] move update blocked load outside newidle

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: <CAKfTPtCwmt9HHDuN7tVhZiy7R3e5XHuExU-PVOb++40fYzu-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2021 16:57:15 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 v4] move update blocked load outside newidle_balance

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 16:54, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 02:30:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Joel reported long preempt and irq off sequence in newidle_balance because
> > of a large number of CPU cgroups in use and having to be updated. This
> > patchset moves the update outside newidle_imblance. This enables to early
> > abort during the updates in case of pending irq as an example.
> >
> > Instead of kicking a normal ILB that will wakes up CPU which is already
> > idle, patch 6 triggers the update of statistics in the idle thread of
> > the CPU before selecting and entering an idle state.
>
> I'm confused... update_blocked_averages(), which calls
> __update_blocked_fair(), which is the one doing the cgroup iteration
> thing, runs with rq->lock held, and thus will have IRQs disabled any
> which way around we turn this thing.
>
> Or is the problem that we called nohz_idle_balance(), which does
> update_nohz_stats() -> update_blocked_averages() for evey NOHZ cpu from
> newidle balance, such that we get NR_NOHZ_CPUS * NR_CGROUPS IRQ latency?
> Which is now reduced to just NR_CGROUPS ?

Yes we can now abort between each cpu update