| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d3c8d1eb-bed3-a5f7-4ff1-a43399c59d8c@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:49:17 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/fair: skip busy cores in SIS search
On 7/21/22 12:16 AM, Gautham R. Shenoy Wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 08:04:50PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>
> [..snip..]
>
>>
>> +static void sd_update_icpus(int core, int icpu)
>
> How about update_llc_icpus() ?
LGTM, will rename.
>
>> +{
>> + struct sched_domain_shared *sds;
>> + struct cpumask *icpus;
>> +
>> + sds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, core));
>> + if (!sds)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + icpus = sched_domain_icpus(sds);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * XXX: The update is racy between different cores.
>> + * The non-atomic ops here is a tradeoff of accuracy
>> + * for easing the cache traffic.
>> + */
>> + if (icpu == -1)
>> + cpumask_andnot(icpus, icpus, cpu_smt_mask(core));
>> + else if (!cpumask_test_cpu(icpu, icpus))
>> + __cpumask_set_cpu(icpu, icpus);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Scans the local SMT mask to see if the entire core is idle, and records this
>> * information in sd_llc_shared->has_idle_cores.
>> @@ -6340,6 +6362,10 @@ static inline bool test_idle_cpus(int cpu)
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void sd_update_icpus(int core, int icpu)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpus, int *idle_cpu)
>> {
>> return __select_idle_cpu(core, p);
>> @@ -6370,7 +6396,8 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>> if (!this_sd)
>> return -1;
>>
>> - cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
>> + cpumask_and(cpus, has_idle_core ? sched_domain_span(sd) :
>> + sched_domain_icpus(sd->shared), p->cpus_ptr);
>
> With this we get an idea of the likely idle CPUs. However, we may
> still want SIS_UTIL on top of this as it determines the number of idle
> CPUs to scan based on the utilization average that will iron out any
> transient idle CPUs which may feature in
> sched_domain_icpus(sd->shared) but are not likely to remain idle. Is
> this understanding correct ?
>
Yes, the sd->shared is not real-time updated so it could contain
false positives. The SIS_UTIL limits the efforts we should pay for
and SIS filter tries to make the efforts more efficient by ironing
out the unlikely idle cpus.
>
>>
>> if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !has_idle_core) {
>> u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
>> @@ -8342,6 +8369,7 @@ struct sd_lb_stats {
>> unsigned int prefer_sibling; /* tasks should go to sibling first */
>>
>> int sd_state;
>> + int idle_cpu;
>>
>> struct sg_lb_stats busiest_stat;/* Statistics of the busiest group */
>> struct sg_lb_stats local_stat; /* Statistics of the local group */
>> @@ -8362,6 +8390,7 @@ static inline void init_sd_lb_stats(struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
>> .total_load = 0UL,
>> .total_capacity = 0UL,
>> .sd_state = sd_is_busy,
>> + .idle_cpu = -1,
>> .busiest_stat = {
>> .idle_cpus = UINT_MAX,
>> .group_type = group_has_spare,
>> @@ -8702,10 +8731,18 @@ sched_asym(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs
>> return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, group->asym_prefer_cpu);
>> }
>>
>> -static inline void sd_classify(struct sd_lb_stats *sds, struct rq *rq)
>> +static inline void sd_classify(struct sd_lb_stats *sds, struct rq *rq, int cpu)
>> {
>> - if (sds->sd_state != sd_has_icpus && unoccupied_rq(rq))
>> + if (sds->sd_state != sd_has_icpus && unoccupied_rq(rq)) {
>> + /*
>> + * Prefer idle cpus than unoccupied ones. This
>> + * is achieved by only allowing the idle ones
>> + * unconditionally overwrite the preious record
> ^^^^^^^^
> Nit: previous
>
Will fix.
>
>> + * while the occupied ones can't.
>> + */
>
> This if condition is only executed when we encounter the very first
> unoccupied cpu in the SMT domain. So why do we need this comment here
> about preferring idle cpus over unoccupied ones ?
>
Agreed, this comment should be removed.
>
>> + sds->idle_cpu = cpu;
>> sds->sd_state = sd_has_icpus;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -8741,7 +8778,7 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
>> sgs->sum_nr_running += nr_running;
>>
>> if (update_core)
>> - sd_classify(sds, rq);
>> + sd_classify(sds, rq, i);
>>
>> if (nr_running > 1)
>> *sg_status |= SG_OVERLOAD;
>> @@ -8757,7 +8794,16 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
>> * No need to call idle_cpu() if nr_running is not 0
>> */
>> if (!nr_running && idle_cpu(i)) {
>> + /*
>> + * Prefer the last idle cpu by overwriting
>> + * preious one. The first idle cpu in this
> ^^^^^^^
> Nit: previous
Will fix.
>
>> + * domain (if any) can trigger balancing
>> + * and fed with tasks, so we'd better choose
>> + * a candidate in an opposite way.
>> + */
>
> This is a better place to call out the fact that an idle cpu is
> preferrable to an unoccupied cpu.
>
>> + sds->idle_cpu = i;
>> sgs->idle_cpus++;
>> +
>> /* Idle cpu can't have misfit task */
>> continue;
>> }
>> @@ -9273,8 +9319,40 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
>>
>> static void sd_update_state(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
>> {
>> - if (sds->sd_state == sd_has_icpus && !test_idle_cpus(env->dst_cpu))
>> - set_idle_cpus(env->dst_cpu, true);
>> + struct sched_domain_shared *sd_smt_shared = env->sd->shared;
>> + enum sd_state new = sds->sd_state;
>> + int this = env->dst_cpu;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Parallel updating can hardly contribute accuracy to
>> + * the filter, besides it can be one of the burdens on
>> + * cache traffic.
>> + */
>> + if (cmpxchg(&sd_smt_shared->updating, 0, 1))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * There is at least one unoccupied cpu available, so
>> + * propagate it to the filter to avoid false negative
>> + * issue which could result in lost tracking of some
>> + * idle cpus thus throughupt downgraded.
>> + */
>> + if (new != sd_is_busy) {
>> + if (!test_idle_cpus(this))
>> + set_idle_cpus(this, true);
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * Nothing changes so nothing to update or
>> + * propagate.
>> + */
>> + if (sd_smt_shared->state == sd_is_busy)
>> + goto out;
>
>
> The main use of sd_smt_shared->state is to detect the transition
> between sd_has_icpu --> sd_is_busy during which sds->idle_cpu == -1
> which will ensure that sd_update_icpus() below clears this core's CPUs
> from the LLC's icpus mask. Calling this out may be a more useful
> comment instead of the comment above.
>
The sd_has_icpu --> sd_is_busy transition is just one of them, the
full decision matrix is:
old new decision
* has_icpu update(icpu)
has_icpu is_busy update(-1)
is_busy is_busy -
The comment here corresponds to the hyphen above. Please let me know
if I understood you incorrectly.
Best Regards,
Abel
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + sd_update_icpus(this, sds->idle_cpu);
>> + sd_smt_shared->state = new;
>> +out:
>> + xchg(&sd_smt_shared->updating, 0);
>> }
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists