linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: Let low-priority cores help high-priority busy SMT cores

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:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:23:24 -0800
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: Let low-priority cores help
 high-priority busy SMT cores

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 02:40:24PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 07/02/2023 05:58, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 80c86462c6f6..c9d0ddfd11f2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10436,11 +10436,20 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env,
> >  		    nr_running == 1)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		/* Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower priority */
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower priority
> > +		 * when balancing between SMT siblings.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * If balancing between cores, let lower priority CPUs help
> > +		 * SMT cores with more than one busy sibling.
> > +		 */
> >  		if ((env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) &&
> >  		    sched_asym_prefer(i, env->dst_cpu) &&
> > -		    nr_running == 1)
> > -			continue;
> > +		    nr_running == 1) {
> > +			if (env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY ||
> > +			    (!(env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) && is_core_idle(i)))
> > +				continue;
> 
> is_core_idle(i) returns true for !CONFIG_SCHED_SMP. So far it was always
> guarded by `flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY` which is only set for
> CONFIG_SCHED_SMP.
> 
> Here it's different but still depends on `flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING`.
> 
> Can we have SD_ASYM_PACKING w/o CONFIG_SCHED_SMP? The comment just says
> `If balancing between cores (MC), let lower priority CPUs help SMT cores
> with more than one busy sibling.`

We cannot have SD_ASYM_PACKING w/o CONFIG_SCHED_SMP. We may have it without
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT. In the latter case we want is_core_idle() to return true
as there are no SMT siblings competing for core throughput and CPU priority 
is meaningful. I can add an extra comment clarifying the !CONFIG_SCHED_SMT /

> 
> So this only mentions your specific asymmetric e-cores w/o SMT and
> p-cores w/ SMT case.
> 
> I'm asking since numa_idle_core(), the only user of is_core_idle() so
> far has an extra `!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present)` condition
> before calling it.

That is a good point. Calling is_core_idle() is pointless if
!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present).

As per feedback from Vincent and Peter, I have put this logic in a helper
function. I'll add an extra check for this static key.

> 
> > +		}
> >  
> >  		switch (env->migration_type) {
> >  		case migrate_load:
> > @@ -10530,8 +10539,20 @@ asym_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> >  	 * lower priority CPUs in order to pack all tasks in the
> >  	 * highest priority CPUs.
> >  	 */
> > -	return env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && (env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) &&
> > -	       sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu);
> > +	if (env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && (env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING)) {
> > +		/* Always obey priorities between SMT siblings. */
> > +		if (env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY)
> > +			return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * A lower priority CPU can help an SMT core with more than one
> > +		 * busy sibling.
> > +		 */
> > +		return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu) ||
> > +		       !is_core_idle(env->src_cpu);
> 
> Here it is similar.

I will use my helper function here as well.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo