linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Queue task on wakelist in the same llc if the wakee cpu is idle

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: <d387ede1-d000-37aa-6ede-237b65b59ce5@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 23:38:32 +0800
From:   Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Queue task on wakelist in the same llc if the
 wakee cpu is idle

On 2022/5/31 21:55, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>> With all that in mind, I'm curious whether your patch is functionaly close
>>>> to the below.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> index 66c4e5922fe1..ffd43264722a 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> @@ -3836,7 +3836,7 @@ static inline bool ttwu_queue_cond(int cpu, int wake_flags)
>>>>    	 * the soon-to-be-idle CPU as the current CPU is likely busy.
>>>>    	 * nr_running is checked to avoid unnecessary task stacking.
>>>>    	 */
>>>> -	if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
>>>> +	if (cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
>>>>    		return true;
>>>>    
>>>>    	return false;
>>>
>>> It's a little different. This may bring extra IPIs when nr_running == 1
>>> and the current task on wakee cpu is not the target wakeup task (i.e.,
>>> rq->curr == another_task && rq->curr != p). Then this another_task may
>>> be disturbed by IPI which is not expected. So IMO the promise by
>>> WF_ON_CPU is necessary.
>>
>> You're right, actually taking a second look at that WF_ON_CPU path,
>> shouldn't the existing condition be:
>>
>> 	if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running)
>>
>> ? Per the p->on_rq and p->on_cpu ordering, if we have WF_ON_CPU here then
>> we must have !p->on_rq, so the deactivate has happened, thus the task
>> being alone on the rq implies nr_running==0.
>>
>> @Mel, do you remember why you went for <=1 here? I couldn't find any clues
>> on the original posting.
>>
> 
> I don't recall exactly why I went with <= 1 there but I may not have
> considered the memory ordering of on_rq and nr_running and the comment
> above it is literally what I was thinking at the time. I think you're
> right and that check can be !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running.
> 

If the check becomes !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running
My patch would change, too.
Shall we remove WF_ON_CPU completely?