linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/numa: Stop an exhastive search if an idle core is found

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: <20221025093226.dm4sjvdq2tofkwvc@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:32:26 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:     Hao Jia <jiahao.os@...edance.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/numa: Stop an exhastive search
 if an idle core is found

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:16:29AM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
> > Remove the change in the first hunk and call break in the second hunk
> > after updating ns->idle_cpu.
> > 
> 
> Yes, thanks for your review.
> If I understand correctly, some things might look like this.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index e4a0b8bd941c..dfcb620bfe50 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1792,7 +1792,7 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct task_numa_env
> *env,
>                 ns->nr_running += rq->cfs.h_nr_running;
>                 ns->compute_capacity += capacity_of(cpu);
> 
> -               if (find_idle && !rq->nr_running && idle_cpu(cpu)) {
> +               if (find_idle && idle_core < 0 && !rq->nr_running &&
> idle_cpu(cpu)) {
>                         if (READ_ONCE(rq->numa_migrate_on) ||
>                             !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, env->p->cpus_ptr))
>                                 continue;
> 

I meant more like the below but today I wondered why did I not do this in
the first place? The answer is because it's wrong and broken in concept.

The full loop is needed to calculate approximate NUMA stats at a
point in time. For example, the src and dst nr_running is needed by
task_numa_find_cpu. The search for an idle CPU or core in update_numa_stats
is simply taking advantage of the fact we are scanning anyway to keep
track of an idle CPU or core to avoid a second search as per ff7db0bf24db
("sched/numa: Prefer using an idle CPU as a migration target instead of
comparing tasks")

The patch I had in mind is below but that said, for both your version and
my initial suggestion

Naked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>

For the record, this is what I was suggesting initially because it's more
efficient but it's wrong, don't do it.

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index e4a0b8bd941c..7f1f6a1736a5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1800,7 +1800,12 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct task_numa_env *env,
 			if (ns->idle_cpu == -1)
 				ns->idle_cpu = cpu;
 
+			/* If we find an idle core, stop searching. */
 			idle_core = numa_idle_core(idle_core, cpu);
+			if (idle_core >= 0) {
+				ns->idle_cpu = idle_core;
+				break;
+			}
 		}
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -1808,9 +1813,6 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct task_numa_env *env,
 	ns->weight = cpumask_weight(cpumask_of_node(nid));
 
 	ns->node_type = numa_classify(env->imbalance_pct, ns);
-
-	if (idle_core >= 0)
-		ns->idle_cpu = idle_core;
 }
 
 static void task_numa_assign(struct task_numa_env *env,