| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:15:36 +0800
From: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@...il.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tao.zhou@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Simplify core-wide task selection
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:38:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:03:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Let me go do that and also attempt a Changelog to go with it ;-)
>
> How's this then?
>
> ---
> Subject: sched/core: Simplify core-wide task selection
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Tue Aug 24 11:05:47 CEST 2021
>
> Tao suggested a two-pass task selection to avoid the retry loop.
>
> Not only does it avoid the retry loop, it results in *much* simpler
> code.
>
> This also fixes an issue spotted by Josh Don where, for SMT3+, we can
> forget to update max on the first pass and get to do an extra round.
>
> Suggested-by: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 156 +++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index ceae25ea8a0e..8a9a32df5f38 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5381,8 +5381,7 @@ __pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> return p;
> }
>
> - /* The idle class should always have a runnable task: */
> - BUG();
> + BUG(); /* The idle class should always have a runnable task. */
How can use pick_task() here instead.
The Reported-by is comfortable and enough for me.
Otherwise, Look good to me.
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> @@ -5404,54 +5403,18 @@ static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> return a->core_cookie == b->core_cookie;
> }
>
> -// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
> -/*
> - * Returns
> - * - NULL if there is no runnable task for this class.
> - * - the highest priority task for this runqueue if it matches
> - * rq->core->core_cookie or its priority is greater than max.
> - * - Else returns idle_task.
> - */
> -static struct task_struct *
> -pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max, bool in_fi)
> +static inline struct task_struct *pick_task(struct rq *rq)
> {
> - struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
> - unsigned long cookie = rq->core->core_cookie;
> -
> - class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
> - if (!class_pick)
> - return NULL;
> -
> - if (!cookie) {
> - /*
> - * If class_pick is tagged, return it only if it has
> - * higher priority than max.
> - */
> - if (max && class_pick->core_cookie &&
> - prio_less(class_pick, max, in_fi))
> - return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
> + const struct sched_class *class;
> + struct task_struct *p;
>
> - return class_pick;
> + for_each_class(class) {
> + p = class->pick_task(rq);
> + if (p)
> + return p;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * If class_pick is idle or matches cookie, return early.
> - */
> - if (cookie_equals(class_pick, cookie))
> - return class_pick;
> -
> - cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
> -
> - /*
> - * If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
> - * the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
> - * the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
> - */
> - if (prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick, in_fi) &&
> - (!max || prio_less(max, class_pick, in_fi)))
> - return class_pick;
> -
> - return cookie_pick;
> + BUG(); /* The idle class should always have a runnable task. */
> }
>
> extern void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool in_fi);
> @@ -5459,11 +5422,12 @@ extern void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool in_f
> static struct task_struct *
> pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> {
> - struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
> - const struct sched_class *class;
> + struct task_struct *next, *p, *max = NULL;
> const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
> bool fi_before = false;
> - int i, j, cpu, occ = 0;
> + unsigned long cookie;
> + int i, cpu, occ = 0;
> + struct rq *rq_i;
> bool need_sync;
>
> if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
> @@ -5536,12 +5500,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> * and there are no cookied tasks running on siblings.
> */
> if (!need_sync) {
> - for_each_class(class) {
> - next = class->pick_task(rq);
> - if (next)
> - break;
> - }
> -
> + next = pick_task(rq);
> if (!next->core_cookie) {
> rq->core_pick = NULL;
> /*
> @@ -5554,76 +5513,51 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> }
> }
>
> - for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> - struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> -
> - rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
> + /*
> + * For each thread: do the regular task pick and find the max prio task
> + * amongst them.
> + *
> + * Tie-break prio towards the current CPU
> + */
> + for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, cpu) {
> + rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
>
> if (i != cpu)
> update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> +
> + p = rq_i->core_pick = pick_task(rq_i);
> + if (!max || prio_less(max, p, fi_before))
> + max = p;
> }
>
> + cookie = rq->core->core_cookie = max->core_cookie;
> +
> /*
> - * Try and select tasks for each sibling in descending sched_class
> - * order.
> + * For each thread: try and find a runnable task that matches @max or
> + * force idle.
> */
> - for_each_class(class) {
> -again:
> - for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, cpu) {
> - struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> - struct task_struct *p;
> -
> - if (rq_i->core_pick)
> - continue;
> + for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> + rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> + p = rq_i->core_pick;
>
> - /*
> - * If this sibling doesn't yet have a suitable task to
> - * run; ask for the most eligible task, given the
> - * highest priority task already selected for this
> - * core.
> - */
> - p = pick_task(rq_i, class, max, fi_before);
> + if (!cookie_equals(p, cookie)) {
> + p = NULL;
> + if (cookie)
> + p = sched_core_find(rq_i, cookie);
> if (!p)
> - continue;
> + p = idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq_i);
> + }
>
> - if (!is_task_rq_idle(p))
> - occ++;
> + rq_i->core_pick = p;
>
> - rq_i->core_pick = p;
> - if (rq_i->idle == p && rq_i->nr_running) {
> + if (p == rq_i->idle) {
> + if (rq_i->nr_running) {
> rq->core->core_forceidle = true;
> if (!fi_before)
> rq->core->core_forceidle_seq++;
> }
> -
> - /*
> - * If this new candidate is of higher priority than the
> - * previous; and they're incompatible; we need to wipe
> - * the slate and start over. pick_task makes sure that
> - * p's priority is more than max if it doesn't match
> - * max's cookie.
> - *
> - * NOTE: this is a linear max-filter and is thus bounded
> - * in execution time.
> - */
> - if (!max || !cookie_match(max, p)) {
> - struct task_struct *old_max = max;
> -
> - rq->core->core_cookie = p->core_cookie;
> - max = p;
> -
> - if (old_max) {
> - rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
> - for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
> - if (j == i)
> - continue;
> -
> - cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = NULL;
> - }
> - occ = 1;
> - goto again;
> - }
> - }
> + } else {
> + occ++;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -5643,7 +5577,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> * non-matching user state.
> */
> for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> - struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> + rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
>
> /*
> * An online sibling might have gone offline before a task
Thanks,
Tao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists