linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2 1/6] sched/fair: Determine active load balance for SMT sched groups

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: <20230612111359.GI4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:13:59 +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>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/6] sched/fair: Determine active load balance for SMT
 sched groups

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:32:27PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:

> +/* One group has more than one SMT CPU while the other group does not */
> +static inline bool smt_vs_nonsmt_groups(struct sched_group *sg1,
> +				    struct sched_group *sg2)
> +{
> +	if (!sg1 || !sg2)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return (sg1->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) !=
> +		(sg2->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool smt_balance(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs,
> +			       struct sched_group *group)
> +{
> +	if (env->idle == CPU_NOT_IDLE)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * For SMT source group, it is better to move a task
> +	 * to a CPU that doesn't have multiple tasks sharing its CPU capacity.
> +	 * Note that if a group has a single SMT, SD_SHARE_CPUCAPCITY
> +	 * will not be on.
> +	 */
> +	if (group->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY &&
> +	    sgs->sum_h_nr_running > 1)
> +		return true;

AFAICT this does the right thing for SMT>2

> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static inline bool
>  sched_reduced_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
>  {

> @@ -9537,6 +9581,18 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>  		break;
>  
>  	case group_has_spare:
> +		/*
> +		 * Do not pick sg with SMT CPUs over sg with pure CPUs,
> +		 * as we do not want to pull task off half empty SMT core
> +		 * and make the core idle.
> +		 */
> +		if (smt_vs_nonsmt_groups(sds->busiest, sg)) {
> +			if (sg->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY)
> +				return false;
> +			else
> +				return true;
> +		}

However, here I'm not at all sure. Consider SMT-4 with 2 active CPUs, we
still very much would like to pull one task off if we have an idle core
somewhere, no?