linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] sched/fair: Use the prefer

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: <20230224122900.GA12626@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:29:00 -0800
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <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>,
        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 06/10] sched/fair: Use the prefer_sibling flag of the
 current sched domain

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:09:55AM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 06:21, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:43:28PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 01:17:09PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>> On 10/02/2023 19:31, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 05:12:30PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/02/23 17:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 02:54:56PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>> Can you not detect the E-core dst_cpu case on MC with:
> >>>
> >>> +       if (child)
> >>> +               sds->prefer_sibling = child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> >>> +       else if (sds->busiest)
> >>> +               sds->prefer_sibling = sds->busiest->group_weight > 1;
> >>
> >> Whose child wants the prefer_sibling setting? In update_sd_lb_stats(), it
> >> is set based on the flags of the destination CPU's sched domain. But when
> >> used in find_busiest_group() tasks are spread from the busiest group's
> >> child domain.
> >>
> >> Your proposed code, also needs a check for SD_PREFER_SIBLING, no?
> > 
> > I tweaked the solution that Dietmar proposed:
> > 
> > -	sds->prefer_sibling = child && child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> > +	if (sds->busiest)
> > +		sds->prefer_sibling = sds->busiest->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> 
> Maybe:
> 
> sds->prefer_sibling = !!(sds->busiest->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING);
> 
> 1 vs 2048 ?

Sure, I can do this.
> 
> > This comes from the observation that the prefer_sibling setting acts on
> > busiest group. It then depends on whether the busiest group, not the local
> > group, has child sched sched domains. Today it works because in most cases
> > both the local and the busiest groups have child domains with the SD_
> > PREFER_SIBLING flag.
> > 
> > This would also satisfy sched domains with the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY flag as
> > prefer_sibling would not be set in that case.
> > 
> > It would also conserve the current behavior at the NUMA level. We would
> > not need to implement SD_SPREAD_TASKS.
> > 
> > This would both fix the SMT vs non-SMT bug and be less invasive.
> 
> Yeah, much better! I always forget that we have those flags on SGs now
> as well. Luckily, we just need to check busiest sg to cover all cases.

Right. I can add a comment to clarify from where the flags come.