linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_CURRENT to wake up short task on current CPU

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: <20230426140324.GB1377058@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:03:24 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Honglei Wang <wanghonglei@...ichuxing.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
        Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        kernel test robot <yujie.liu@...el.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_CURRENT to wake up
 short task on current CPU

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:08:18AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 4af5799b90fc..46c1321c0407 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6501,6 +6501,46 @@ static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Wake up the task on current CPU, if the following conditions are met:
> + *
> + * 1. waker A is the only running task on this_cpu
> + * 3. A is a short duration task (waker will fall asleep soon)
> + * 4. wakee B is a short duration task (impact of B on A is minor)
> + * 5. A and B wake up each other alternately
> + */
> +static bool
> +wake_on_current(int this_cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	if (!sched_feat(SIS_CURRENT))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (cpu_rq(this_cpu)->nr_running > 1)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If a task switches in and then voluntarily relinquishes the
> +	 * CPU quickly, it is regarded as a short duration task. In that
> +	 * way, the short waker is likely to relinquish the CPU soon, which
> +	 * provides room for the wakee. Meanwhile, a short wakee would bring
> +	 * minor impact to the target rq. Put the short waker and wakee together
> +	 * bring benefit to cache-share task pairs and avoid migration overhead.
> +	 */
> +	if (!current->se.dur_avg || ((current->se.dur_avg * 8) >= sysctl_sched_min_granularity))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (!p->se.dur_avg || ((p->se.dur_avg * 8) >= sysctl_sched_min_granularity))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (current->wakee_flips || p->wakee_flips)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (current->last_wakee != p || p->last_wakee != current)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return true;
> +}

So I was going to play with this and found I needed to change things up
since these sysctl's no longer exist in my EEVDF branch.

And while I can easily do
's/sysctl_sched_min_granularity/sysctl_sched_base_slice/', it did make
me wonder if that's the right value to use.

min_gran/base_slice is related to how long we want a task to run before
switching, but that is not related to how long it needs to run to
establish a cache footprint.

Would not sched_migration_cost be a better measure to compare against?
That is also used in task_hot() to prevent migrations.