linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked

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, 11 May 2021 10:25:37 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Dietmar Eggeman <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked_averages()
 for NOHZ



On 5/11/21 8:25 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Sometimes, we want to set this_rq->next_balance backward compared to
> its current value. When a CPU is busy, the balance interval is
> multiplied by busy_factor which is set to 16 by default. On SMT2 sched
> domain level, it means that the interval will be 32ms when busy
> instead of 2ms. But if a busy load balance happens just before
> becoming idle, the this_rq->next_balance will be set 32ms later
> whereas it should go down to 2ms as the CPU is now idle. And this
> becomes even worse when you have 128 CPUs at die sched_domain level
> because the idle CPU will have to wait 2048ms instead of the correct
> 128ms interval.
> 
>>
>>  out:
>>         /* Move the next balance forward */
>> -       if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
>> +       if (time_after(next_balance, this_rq->next_balance))
> 
> The current comparison is correct but next_balance should not be in the past.

I understand then the intention is after the update,
this_rq->next_balance should have a minimum value of jiffies+1. So
we will need

 out:
        /* Move the next balance forward */
+       this_rq->next_balance = max(jiffies+1, this_rq->next_balance);
        if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
                this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;

as next_balance computed will be at least jiffies+1 after your fix to
update_next_balance(). We still need to take care of the case when 
this_rq->next_balance <= jiffies.

So combining with your suggestion on the fix to update_next_balance(),
the fix will be

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 1d75af1ecfb4..2dc471c1511c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9901,7 +9901,7 @@ update_next_balance(struct sched_domain *sd, unsigned long *next_balance)
 
        /* used by idle balance, so cpu_busy = 0 */
        interval = get_sd_balance_interval(sd, 0);
-       next = sd->last_balance + interval;
+       next = max(jiffies+1, sd->last_balance + interval);
 
        if (time_after(*next_balance, next))
                *next_balance = next;
@@ -10681,6 +10681,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 
 out:
        /* Move the next balance forward */
+       this_rq->next_balance = max(jiffies+1, this_rq->next_balance);
        if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
                this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;


> 
> update_next_balance() is only used in newidle_balance() so we could
> modify it to  have:
> 
> next = max(jiffies+1, next = sd->last_balance + interval)

Is the extra assignment "next = sd->last_balance + interval" needed?
This seems more straight forward:

next = max(jiffies+1, sd->last_balance + interval)

I will try to get the benchmark folks to do another run with this change.  
Hopefully I'll get some bandwidth from them soon.

Thanks.

Tim