linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Skip prefer sibling move between SMT group and non-SMT group

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:   Sat, 6 May 2023 01:38:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Skip prefer sibling move between SMT
 group and non-SMT group

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-05-05 at 15:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:09:54AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Do not try to move tasks between non SMT sched group and SMT sched
> > > group for "prefer sibling" load balance.
> > > Let asym_active_balance_busiest() handle that case properly.
> > > Otherwise we could get task bouncing back and forth between
> > > the SMT sched group and non SMT sched group.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 8a325db34b02..58ef7d529731 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -10411,8 +10411,12 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Try to move all excess tasks to a sibling domain of the busiest
> > >  	 * group's child domain.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * Do not try to move between non smt sched group and smt sched
> > > +	 * group. Let asym active balance properly handle that case.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> > > +	    !asymmetric_groups(sds.busiest, sds.local) &&
> > >  	    busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
> > >  		goto force_balance;
> > 
> > This seems to have the hidden assumption that a !SMT core is somehow
> > 'less' that an SMT code. Should this not also look at
> > sched_asym_prefer() to establush this is so?
> > 
> > I mean, imagine I have a regular system and just offline one smt sibling
> > for giggles.
> 
> I don't quite follow your point as asymmetric_groups() returns false even
> one smt sibling is offlined.
> 
> Even say sds.busiest has 1 SMT and sds.local has 2 SMT, both sched groups still
> have SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY flag turned on.  So asymmetric_groups() return
> false and the load balancing logic is not changed for regular non-hybrid system.
> 
> I may be missing something.

What's the difference between the two cases? That is, if the remaining
sibling will have SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACIY from the degenerate SMT domain
that's been reaped, then why doesn't the same thing apply to the atoms
in the hybrid muck?

Those two cases *should* be identical, both cases you have cores with
and cores without SMT.