linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: do active load balance on the new idle cpu

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:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:37:10 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....co>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: do active load balance on the new idle cpu

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 14:26, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> We monitored our latency-sensitive RT tasks are randomly preempted by the
> kthreads migration/n, which means to migrate tasks on CPUn to other new
> idle CPU. The logical as follows,
>
>   new idle CPU                          CPU n
>   (no task to run)                      (busy running)
>   wakeup migration/n                    (busy running)
>   (idle)                                migraion/n preempts current task
>   run the migrated task                 (busy running)

migration thread is only used when we want to migrate the currently
running task of the source cpu.
This doesn't seem to be your case as it's a RT thread that is
currently running so the migration thread should not be woken up as we
don't need it to migrate a runnable but not running cfs thread from
coin to new idle CPU

Do you have more details about the UC. Could it be a race between new
idle load balance starting migration thread to pull the cfs running
thread and the RT thread waking up and preempting cfs task before
migration threads which then preempt your RT threads



>
> As the new idle CPU is going to be idle, we'd better move the migration
> work on it instead of burdening the busy CPU. After this change, the
> logic is,
>  new idle CPU                           CPU n
>  (no task to run)                       (busy running)
>  migrate task from CPU n                (busy running)
>  run the migrated task                  (busy running)
>
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 +++++------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 3248e24a90b0..3e8b98b982ff 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9807,13 +9807,11 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>                                 busiest->push_cpu = this_cpu;
>                                 active_balance = 1;
>                         }
> -                       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&busiest->lock, flags);
>
> -                       if (active_balance) {
> -                               stop_one_cpu_nowait(cpu_of(busiest),
> -                                       active_load_balance_cpu_stop, busiest,
> -                                       &busiest->active_balance_work);
> -                       }
> +                       if (active_balance)
> +                               active_load_balance_cpu_stop(busiest);

this doesn't make sense because we reach this point if we want to
migrate the current running task of the busiest cpu and in order to do
this we need the preempt this current running thread

> +
> +                       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&busiest->lock, flags);
>                 }
>         } else {
>                 sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
> @@ -9923,7 +9921,6 @@ static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data)
>         struct task_struct *p = NULL;
>         struct rq_flags rf;
>
> -       rq_lock_irq(busiest_rq, &rf);
>         /*
>          * Between queueing the stop-work and running it is a hole in which
>          * CPUs can become inactive. We should not move tasks from or to
> @@ -9933,8 +9930,7 @@ static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data)
>                 goto out_unlock;
>
>         /* Make sure the requested CPU hasn't gone down in the meantime: */
> -       if (unlikely(busiest_cpu != smp_processor_id() ||
> -                    !busiest_rq->active_balance))
> +       if (unlikely(!busiest_rq->active_balance))
>                 goto out_unlock;
>
>         /* Is there any task to move? */
> @@ -9981,13 +9977,10 @@ static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data)
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>  out_unlock:
>         busiest_rq->active_balance = 0;
> -       rq_unlock(busiest_rq, &rf);
>
>         if (p)
>                 attach_one_task(target_rq, p);
>
> -       local_irq_enable();
> -
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>