linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: add per-process numa

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0800
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 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>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        songmuchun@...edance.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing

On 2022/1/12 22:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 10:45:28AM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
>> This patch add a new api PR_NUMA_BALANCING in prctl.
>>
>> A large number of page faults will cause performance loss when numa
>> balancing is performing. Thus those processes which care about worst-case
>> performance need numa balancing disabled. Others, on the contrary, allow a
>> temporary performance loss in exchange for higher average performance, so
>> enable numa balancing is better for them.
>>
>> Numa balancing can only be controlled globally by
>> /proc/sys/kernel/numa_balancing. Due to the above case, we want to
>> disable/enable numa_balancing per-process instead.
>>
>> Add numa_balancing under mm_struct. Then use it in task_tick_fair.
>>
>> Set per-process numa balancing:
>> 	prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_DISABLE); //disable
>> 	prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE);  //enable
>> 	prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_DEFAULT); //follow global
> 
> This seems to imply you can prctl(ENABLE) even if the global is
> disabled, IOW sched_numa_balancing is off.
> 

Of course, this semantic has been discussed here FYI.
  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211118085819.GD3301@suse.de/

On 11/18/21 4:58 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
 > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:26:30AM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
 >> 3. prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE);  //enable
 >
 > If PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE enables numa balancing for a task when
 > kernel.numa_balancing == 0 instead of returning an error then sure.


>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 884f29d07963..2980f33ac61f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -11169,8 +11169,12 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
>>   		entity_tick(cfs_rq, se, queued);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
>> +	if (curr->mm && (curr->mm->numab_enabled == NUMAB_ENABLED
>> +	    || (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing)
>> +	    && curr->mm->numab_enabled == NUMAB_DEFAULT)))
>>   		task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
>> +#endif
>>   
>>   	update_misfit_status(curr, rq);
>>   	update_overutilized_status(task_rq(curr));
> 
> There's just about everything wrong there... not least of all the
> horrific coding style.

horrible code, yes.
I'll do some code clean.
-- 
Thanks
Gang Li