| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20210602130355.GA19640@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:03:55 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
corbet@....net, rdunlap@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry
detection
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:50:21PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 27/05/21 16:38, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
>
> I ran this through the usual series of tests ('exotic' topologies, hotplug
> and exclusive cpusets), it all behaves as expected.
>
Thanks for that!
> Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
>
> Some tiny cosmetic nits below, which don't warrant a new revision, and a
> comment wrt purely symmetric systems.
>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/topology.c | 194 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index 55a0a243e871..77e6f79235ad 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>
> > +/*
> > + * Verify whether there is any CPU capacity asymmetry in a given sched domain.
> > + * Provides sd_flags reflecting the asymmetry scope.
> > + */
> > +static inline int
> > +asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
> > + const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> > +{
> > + struct asym_cap_data *entry;
> > + int sd_asym_flags = 0;
> > + int asym_cap_count = 0;
> > + int asym_cap_miss = 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Count how many unique CPU capacities this domain spans across
> > + * (compare sched_domain CPUs mask with ones representing available
> > + * CPUs capacities). Take into account CPUs that might be offline:
> > + * skip those.
> > + */
> > + list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> > + if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd),
> > + cpu_capacity_span(entry)))
>
> IMO this is one such place where the 80 chars limit can be omitted.
>
> > + ++asym_cap_count;
> > + else if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_capacity_span(entry), cpu_map))
> > + ++asym_cap_miss;
> > + }
>
> > +/*
> > + * Build-up/update list of CPUs grouped by their capacities
> > + * An update requires explicit request to rebuild sched domains
> > + * with state indicating CPU topology changes.
> > + */
> > +static void asym_cpu_capacity_scan(void)
> > +{
> > + struct asym_cap_data *entry, *next;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link)
> > + cpumask_clear(cpu_capacity_span(entry));
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_possible_mask,
> > + housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_DOMAIN))
>
> Ditto on keeping this on a single line.
>
> > + asym_cpu_capacity_update_data(cpu);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, next, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> > + if (cpumask_empty(cpu_capacity_span(entry))) {
> > + list_del(&entry->link);
> > + kfree(entry);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
>
> One "corner case" that comes to mind is systems / architectures which are
> purely symmetric wrt CPU capacity. Our x86 friends might object to us
> reserving a puny 24 bytes + cpumask_size() in a corner of their
> memory.
>
> Perhaps we could clear the list in the list_is_singular_case(), and since
> the rest of the code only does list iteration, this should 'naturally'
> cover this case:
>
Can do that.
I am also waiting for a reply regarding the asymmetry detected on an SMT level.
Once I get that solved, I will push new version with embedding your suggestions
as well.
Thanks for having a look!
---
BR
B.
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index 62d412013df8..b06d277fa280 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -1305,14 +1305,13 @@ asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
> * skip those.
> */
> list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> - if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd),
> - cpu_capacity_span(entry)))
> + if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_capacity_span(entry)))
> ++asym_cap_count;
> else if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_capacity_span(entry), cpu_map))
> ++asym_cap_miss;
> }
> /* No asymmetry detected */
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!asym_cap_count) || asym_cap_count == 1)
> + if (asym_cap_count < 2)
> goto leave;
>
> sd_asym_flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY;
> @@ -1360,8 +1359,7 @@ static void asym_cpu_capacity_scan(void)
> list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link)
> cpumask_clear(cpu_capacity_span(entry));
>
> - for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_possible_mask,
> - housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_DOMAIN))
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_DOMAIN))
> asym_cpu_capacity_update_data(cpu);
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, next, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> @@ -1370,6 +1368,16 @@ static void asym_cpu_capacity_scan(void)
> kfree(entry);
> }
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * There's only one capacity value, i.e. this system is symmetric.
> + * No need to keep this data around.
> + */
> + if (list_is_singular(&asym_cap_list)) {
> + entry = list_first_entry(&asym_cap_list, typeof(*entry), link);
> + list_del(&entry->link);
> + kfree(entry);
> + }
> }
>
> /*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists