linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM

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: <YG7kr0Gyj86sMBF8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:10:39 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.comi>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 04:17:10PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:17:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:11:07PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > @@ -8507,6 +8619,10 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> > >  	if (!sgs->sum_h_nr_running)
> > >  		return false;
> > >  
> > > +	if (sgs->group_type == group_asym_packing &&
> > > +	    !asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, sg))
> > > +		return false;
> > 
> > All of this makes my head hurt; but afaict this isn't right.
> > 
> > Your update_sg_lb_stats() change makes that we unconditionally set
> > sgs->group_asym_packing, and then this is to undo that. But it's not
> > clear this covers all cases right.
> 
> We could not make a decision to set sgs->group_asym_packing in
> update_sg_lb_stats() because we don't have information about the dst_cpu
> and its SMT siblings if any. That is the reason I proposed to delay the
> decision to update_sd_pick_busiest(), where we can compare local and
> sgs.

Yeah, I sorta got that.

> > Even if !sched_asym_prefer(), we could end up selecting this sg as
> > busiest, but you're just bailing out here.
> 
> Even if sgs->group_asym_packing is unconditionally set, sgs can still
> be classified as group_overloaded and group_imbalanced. In such cases
> we wouldn't bailout. sgs could not be classified as group_fully_busy
> or group_has_spare and we would bailout, though. Is your concern about
> these? I can fixup these two cases.

Yes. Either explain (in a comment) why those cases are not relevant, or
handle them properly.

Because when reading this, it wasn't at all obvious that this is correct
or as intended.