linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: favor non-idle group in tick preemption

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 16:39:37 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: favor non-idle group in tick preemption

> > Some weirdness about this change though, is that if there is a
> > non-idle current entity, and the two next entities on the cfs_rq are
> > idle and non-idle respectively, we'll now take longer to preempt the
> > on-cpu non-idle entity, because the non-idle entity on the cfs_rq is
> > 'hidden' by the idle 'first' entity. Wakeup preemption is different
> > because we're always directly comparing the current entity with the
> > newly woken entity.
> >
> You are right, this can happen with high probability.
> This patch just compared the curr with the first entity in
> the tick, and it seems hard to consider all the other entity
> in cfs_rq.
>
> So, what specific negative effects this situation would cause?
> For example, the "hidden" non-idle entity's latency will be worse
> than before?

As Abel points out in his email, it can push out the time it'll take
to switch to the other non-idle entity. The change might boost some
benchmarks numbers, but I don't think it is conclusive enough to say
it is a generically beneficial improvement that should be integrated.

By the way, I'm curious if you modified any of the sched_idle_cpu()
and related load balancing around idle entities given that you've made
it so that idle entities can have arbitrary weight (since, as I
described in my prior email, this can otherwise cause issues there).