linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: ignore SIS

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: <20220713034708.GA23431@chenyu5-mobl1>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:47:08 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: ignore SIS_UTIL when has idle core

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 04:20:32PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> When SIS_UTIL is enabled, SIS domain scan will be skipped if
> the LLC is overloaded. Since the overloaded status is checked
> in the load balancing at LLC level, the interval is llc_size
> miliseconds. The duration might be long enough to affect the
> overall system throughput if idle cores are out of reach in
> SIS domain scan.
The idle core scan was skipped in SIS_UTIL because we saw better
improvement in some benchmarks. But yes, we could make has_idle_core
to scan anyway no matter what the system load is, if we have some
data to support it. I'll test this patch on top of latest sched/core
branch to see if this makes a difference.

thanks,
Chenyu
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 +++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index a78d2e3b9d49..cd758b3616bd 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6392,16 +6392,19 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>  	struct sched_domain *this_sd;
>  	u64 time = 0;
>  
> -	this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
> -	if (!this_sd)
> -		return -1;
> -
>  	cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
>  
> -	if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !has_idle_core) {
> +	if (has_idle_core)
> +		goto scan;
> +
> +	if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
>  		u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
>  		unsigned long now = jiffies;
>  
> +		this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
> +		if (!this_sd)
> +			return -1;
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * If we're busy, the assumption that the last idle period
>  		 * predicts the future is flawed; age away the remaining
> @@ -6436,7 +6439,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>  				return -1;
>  		}
>  	}
> -
> +scan:
>  	for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
>  		if (has_idle_core) {
>  			i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>