linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched: cpuset: Don't rebuild root domains on suspend-resume

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, 7 Mar 2023 21:29:56 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Cc:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
        claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
        bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: cpuset: Don't rebuild root domains on
 suspend-resume

On 3/7/23 17:17, Hao Luo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 1:13 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 3/7/23 16:06, Hao Luo wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:09 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/23 14:56, Hao Luo wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 2:15 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>>>>>> Commit f9a25f776d78 ("cpusets: Rebuild root domain deadline accounting information")
>>>>>> enabled rebuilding root domain on cpuset and hotplug operations to
>>>>>> correct deadline accounting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rebuilding root domain is a slow operation and we see 10+ of ms delays
>>>>>> on suspend-resume because of that (worst case captures 20ms which
>>>>>> happens often).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since nothing is expected to change on suspend-resume operation; skip
>>>>>> rebuilding the root domains to regain the some of the time lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Achieve this by refactoring the code to pass whether dl accoutning needs
>>>>>> an update to rebuild_sched_domains(). And while at it, rename
>>>>>> rebuild_root_domains() to update_dl_rd_accounting() which I believe is
>>>>>> a more representative name since we are not really rebuilding the root
>>>>>> domains, but rather updating dl accounting at the root domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some users of rebuild_sched_domains() will skip dl accounting update
>>>>>> now:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            * Update sched domains when relaxing the domain level in cpuset
>>>>>>              which only impacts searching level in load balance
>>>>>>            * update sched domains when cpufreq governor changes and we need
>>>>>>              to create the perf domains
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Users in arch/x86 and arch/s390 are left with the old behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debugged-by: Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@...alina.io>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Hi Qais,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for reporting this. We observed the same issue in our
>>>>> production environment. Rebuild_root_domains() is also called under
>>>>> cpuset_write_resmask, which handles writing to cpuset.cpus. Under
>>>>> production workloads, on a 4.15 kernel, we observed the median latency
>>>>> of writing cpuset.cpus at 3ms, p99 at 7ms. Now the median becomes
>>>>> 60ms, p99 at >100ms. Writing cpuset.cpus is a fairly frequent and
>>>>> critical path in production, but blindly traversing every task in the
>>>>> system is not scalable. And its cost is really unnecessary for users
>>>>> who don't use deadline tasks at all.
>>>> The rebuild_root_domains() function shouldn't be called when updating
>>>> cpuset.cpus unless it is a partition root. Is it?
>>>>
>>> I think it's because we were using the legacy hierarchy. I'm not
>>> familiar with cpuset partition though.
>> In legacy hierarchy, changing cpuset.cpus shouldn't lead to the calling
>> of rebuild_root_domains() unless you play with cpuset.sched_load_balance
>> file by changing it to 0 in the right cpusets. If you are touching
>> cpuset.sched_load_balance, you shouldn't change cpuset.cpus that often.
>>
> Actually, I think it's the opposite. If I understand the code
> correctly[1], it looks like rebuild_root_domains is called when
> LOAD_BALANCE _is_ set and sched_load_balance is 1 by default. Is that
> condition a bug?
>
> I don't think we updated cpuset.sched_load_balance.
>
> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c#L1677

The only reason rebuild_root_domains() is called is because the the 
scheduling domains were changed. The cpuset.sched_load_balance control 
file is 1 by default. If no one touch it, there is just one global 
scheduling domain that covers all the active CPUs. However, by setting 
cpuset.sched_load_balance to 0 in the right cpusets, you can create 
multiple scheduling domains or disabling load balancing on some CPUs. 
With that setup, changing cpuset.cpus in the right place can cause 
rebuild_root_domains() to be called because the set of scheduling 
domains are changed.

Cheers,
Longman