linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Fix newidle

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: <YdxeoRUeZhl2D+dK@FVFF7649Q05P>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:29:19 +0000
From:   Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        Valentin.Schneider@....com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
        qperret@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Fix newidle_balance() for overutilized
 systems

[...]

> 
> > can spuriously maintain overutilized for a long period of time.
> >
> > We then need newidle_balance() to proceed with balancing if the system is
> > overutilized.
> 
> Always triggering a costly newidle_balance when you are already
> overutilized for the sole purpose of clearing overutilized seems to be
> a bit overkill.

But the only cases where newidle_balance() would now run while it used not to,
are when overutilized is set but overload is not. Which is either a transient
state for which we do not anticipate more than one stat update or it is the
situation where one of the biggest CPU is overutilized while having nr_running <
2.

It can indeed add some additional costly calls to newidle_balance, but they
will not be plentiful, especially with the other patch from this series: 

  "sched/fair: Do not raise overutilized for idle CPUs"

> 
> Furthermore, nothing prevents us to abort newidle_balance before
> reaching the root domain

should_we_balance() always return true in the case of newidle. So I suppose you
refer to max_newidle_lb_cost?

> 
> So this doesn't seem like the good way to proceed

What are our other options?

Resolving it in the nohz balancer would need to change should_we_balance().

I also tried solely to not raise overutilized when the CPU is idle but this is
not a solution either as when a task migration is pending, you can end-up with
a !idle CPU but with nr_running < 2, so once again overutilized set, overload
not.

> 
> >
> > Fixes: 2802bf3cd936 ("sched/fair: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator")
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index e2f6fa14e5e7..51f6f55abb37 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10849,7 +10849,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
> >
> > -       if (!READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) ||
> > +       if ((!READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) &&
> > +           !READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overutilized)) ||
> >             (sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) {
> >
> >                 if (sd)
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >