linux-kernel - wakeup_affine_weight() is b0rked - was Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr

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: <02c977d239c312de5e15c77803118dcf1e11f216.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Sun, 03 Oct 2021 05:07:58 +0200
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: wakeup_affine_weight() is b0rked - was Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair:
 Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running

On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 07:22 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 11:36 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:52:32AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Preemption does rapidly run into diminishing return as load climbs for
> > > a lot of loads, but as you know, it's a rather sticky wicket because
> > > even when over-committed, preventing light control threads from slicing
> > > through (what can be a load's own work crew of) hogs can seriously
> > > injure performance.
> > >
> >
> > Turning this into a classic Rob Peter To Pay Paul problem. We don't know
> > if there is a light control thread that needs to run or not that affects
> > overall performance. It all depends on whether that control thread needs
> > to make progress for the overall workload or whether there are a mix of
> > workloads resulting in overloading.
>
> WRT overload, and our good buddies Peter and Paul :) I added...
>         if (gran >= sysctl_sched_latency >> 1)
>                 trace_printk("runnable:%d preempt disabled\n",cfs_rq->nr_running);
> ...to watch, and met the below when I.. logged in. 
>
> homer:..debug/tracing # tail -20 trace
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690322: wakeup_gran: runnable:9 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690325: wakeup_gran: runnable:10 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690330: wakeup_gran: runnable:11 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690363: wakeup_gran: runnable:13 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690377: wakeup_gran: runnable:14 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690390: wakeup_gran: runnable:15 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690404: wakeup_gran: runnable:16 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690425: wakeup_gran: runnable:9 preempt disabled
>        ksmserver-2694    [003] d..3.    60.690432: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>        ksmserver-2694    [003] d..3.    60.690436: wakeup_gran: runnable:7 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690451: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [002] d..5.    60.690465: wakeup_gran: runnable:7 preempt disabled
>             kmix-2736    [000] d..3.    60.690491: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889635: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889675: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889863: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889944: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889957: wakeup_gran: runnable:7 preempt disabled
>                X-2229    [004] d..5.    92.889968: wakeup_gran: runnable:8 preempt disabled
>   QXcbEventQueue-2740    [000] d..4.    92.890025: wakeup_gran: runnable:6 preempt disabled
> homer:..debug/tracing
>
> Watching 'while sleep 1; do clear;tail trace; done' with nothing but a
> kbuild running is like watching top.  There's enough stacking during
> routine use of my desktop box that it runs into the tick granularity
> wall pretty much continuously, so 'overload' may want redefining.

I looked into that crazy stacking depth...

static int
wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
                   int this_cpu, int prev_cpu, int sync)
{
        s64 this_eff_load, prev_eff_load;
        unsigned long task_load;

        this_eff_load = cpu_load(cpu_rq(this_cpu));
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the butler didit!

That's pretty darn busted as it sits.  Between load updates, X, or any
other waker of many, can stack wakees to a ludicrous depth.  Tracing
kbuild vs firefox playing a youtube clip, I watched X stack 20 of the
zillion firefox minions while their previous CPUs all had 1 lousy task
running but a cpu_load() higher than the cpu_load() of X's CPU.  Most
of those prev_cpus were where X had left them when it migrated. Each
and every crazy depth migration was wake_affine_weight() deciding we
should pull based on crappy data.  As instantaneous load on the waker
CPU blew through the roof in my trace snapshot, its cpu_load() did
finally budge.. a tiny bit.. downward.  No idea where the stack would
have topped out, my tracing_off() limit was 20.

Hohum, my box grew a WA_INST companion to SIS_MIN_LAT cache cold task
distribulator feature ;-)  Not particularly lovely, but it knocks over
the leaning tower of minions.

	-Mike