linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: skip newidle update stats

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCGnQc+knLbm=zR-a5T2yEJOZo3CWTJcwHgGdZQ0uYyog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 15:47:21 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: skip newidle update stats

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 15:29, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:58:56AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > In case we skip the newly idle LB entirely or we abort it because we are
> > going to exceed the avg_idle, we have to make sure to not start an update
> > of the blocked load when entering idle
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 13950beb01a2..a162b0ec8963 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >       int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
> >       u64 t0, t1, curr_cost = 0;
> >       struct sched_domain *sd;
> > -     int pulled_task = 0;
> > +     int pulled_task = 0, early_stop = 0;
> >
> >       update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
> >
> > @@ -10898,8 +10898,16 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >       if (!READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) ||
> >           (sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) {
> >
> > -             if (sd)
> > +             if (sd) {
> >                       update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
> > +
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * We skip new idle LB because there is not enough
> > +                      * time before next wake up. Make sure that we will
> > +                      * not kick NOHZ_NEWILB_KICK
> > +                      */
> > +                     early_stop = 1;
> > +             }
> >               rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> >               goto out;
> > @@ -10918,8 +10926,10 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >
> >               update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
> >
> > -             if (this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)
> > +             if (this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd->max_newidle_lb_cost) {
> > +                     early_stop = 1;
> >                       break;
> > +             }
> >
> >               if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
> >
> > @@ -10969,7 +10979,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >
> >       if (pulled_task)
> >               this_rq->idle_stamp = 0;
> > -     else
> > +     else if (!early_stop)
> >               nohz_newidle_balance(this_rq);
> >
> >       rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
>
> Urgh code flow is a mess... Let me see if I can fix some of that.

yeah, I haven't find a better way

>
> Anyway, does nohz_newidle_balance() want to loose it's ->avg_idle test
> with this on?

This test still covers cases with short newly idle balance. Being
conservative, people never complained that the update of blocked load
average of idle CPUs doesn't happen often enough. It's most often the
opposite