linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Use weight of SD_NUMA domain in find_busiest

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:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:32:27 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Gautham Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Use weight of SD_NUMA domain in
 find_busiest_group

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53:50AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 10:33, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> >
> > find_busiest_group uses the child domain's group weight instead of
> > the sched_domain's weight that has SD_NUMA set when calculating the
> > allowed imbalance between NUMA nodes. This is wrong and inconsistent
> > with find_idlest_group.
> 
> I agree that find_busiest_group and find_idlest_group should be
> consistent and use the same parameters but I wonder if sched_domain's
> weight is the right one to use instead of the target group's weight.
> 

Ok

> IIRC, the goal of adjust_numa_imbalance is to keep some threads on the
> same node as long as we consider that there is no performance impact
> because of sharing  resources as they can even take advantage of
> locality if they interact.

Yes.

> So we consider that tasks will not be
> impacted by sharing resources if they use less than 25% of the CPUs of
> a node. If we use the sd->span_weight instead, we consider that we can
> pack threads in the same node as long as it uses less than 25% of the
> CPUs in all nodes.
> 

I assume you mean the target group weight instead of the node. The
primary resource we are concerned with is memory bandwidth and it's a
guess because we do not know for sure where memory channels are or how
they are configured in this context and it may or may not be correlated
with groups. I think using the group instead would deserve a series on
its own after settling on an imbalance number when there are multiple
LLCs per node.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs