| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f534ead9-56cc-d834-90a3-67f8532230ff@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:36:44 +0800
From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
CC: <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
<mgorman@...e.de>, <vschneid@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<bsegall@...gle.com>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
<prime.zeng@...wei.com>, <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
<ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <21cnbao@...il.com>,
<kprateek.nayak@....com>, <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] sched/fair: Scan cluster before scanning LLC in
wake-up path
On 2023/6/9 18:50, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-06-08 at 14:45:54 +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
>> On 2023/6/8 11:26, Chen Yu wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-31 at 16:21:00 +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>> On 2023/5/30 22:39, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/5/30 19:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:02:53PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> index 373ff5f55884..b8c129ed8b47 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> @@ -6994,6 +6994,30 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_cluster_active)) {
>>>>>>> + struct sched_domain *sdc = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_cluster, target));
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (sdc) {
>>>>>>> + for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(sdc), target + 1) {
>>>>>>> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus))
>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (has_idle_core) {
>>>>>>> + i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
>>>>>>> + if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>>>>>> + return i;
>>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>>> + if (--nr <= 0)
>>>>>>> + return -1;
>>>>>>> + idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
>>>>>>> + if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>>>>>> + return idle_cpu;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, sched_domain_span(sdc));
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would not this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>> @@ -6994,6 +6994,29 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_s
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_cluster_active)) {
>>>>>> + struct sched_group *sg = sd->groups;
>>>>>> + if (sg->flags & SD_CLUSTER) {
>>>>>> + for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_group_span(sg), target+1) {
>>>>>> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus))
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (has_idle_core) {
>>>>>> + i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
>>>>>> + if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>> + if (--nr <= 0)
>>>>>> + return -1;
>>>>>> + idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
>>>>>> + if ((unsigned)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>>>>> + return idle_cpu;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, sched_group_span(sg));
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
>>>>>> if (has_idle_core) {
>>>>>> i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> also work? Then we can avoid the extra sd_cluster per-cpu variable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it will be fine since sg->flags is derived from the child domain. But practically it doesn't.
>>>>> Tested on a 2P Skylake server with no clusters, add some debug messages to see how sg->flags appears:
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>>>> index 69968ed9ffb9..5c443b74abf5 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>>>> @@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ static int sched_domain_debug_one(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu, int level,
>>>>>
>>>>> cpumask_or(groupmask, groupmask, sched_group_span(group));
>>>>>
>>>>> - printk(KERN_CONT " %d:{ span=%*pbl",
>>>>> - group->sgc->id,
>>>>> + printk(KERN_CONT " %d:{ cluster: %s span=%*pbl",
>>>>> + group->sgc->id, group->flags & SD_CLUSTER ? "true" : "false",
>>>>> cpumask_pr_args(sched_group_span(group)));
>>>>>
>>>>> if ((sd->flags & SD_OVERLAP) &&
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately the result doesn't match what I expected, the MC domain's sg->flags still marked
>>>>> as cluster:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 8.886099] CPU0 attaching sched-domain(s):
>>>>> [ 8.889539] domain-0: span=0,40 level=SMT
>>>>> [ 8.893538] groups: 0:{ cluster: false span=0 }, 40:{ cluster: false span=40 }
>>>>> [ 8.897538] domain-1: span=0-19,40-59 level=MC
>>>>> [ 8.901538] groups: 0:{ cluster: true span=0,40 cap=2048 }, 1:{ cluster: true span=1,41 cap=2048 }, 2:{ cluster: true span=2,42 cap=2048 }, 3:{ cluster: true span=3,43 cap=2048 }, 4:{ cluster: true span=4,44 cap=2048 }, 5:{ cluster: true span=5,45 cap=2048 }, 6:{ cluster: true span=6,46 cap=2048 }, 7:{ cluster: true span=7,47 cap=2048 }, 8:{ cluster: true span=8,48 cap=2048 }, 9:{ cluster: true span=9,49 cap=2048 }, 10:{ cluster: true span=10,50 cap=2048 }, 11:{ cluster: true span=11,51 cap=2048 }, 12:{ cluster: true span=12,52 cap=2048 }, 13:{ cluster: true span=13,53 cap=2048 }, 14:{ cluster: true span=14,54 cap=2048 }, 15:{ cluster: true span=15,55 cap=2048 }, 16:{ cluster: true span=16,56 cap=2048 }, 17:{ cluster: true span=17,57 cap=2048 }, 18:{ cluster: true span=18,58 cap=2048 }, 19:{ cluster: true span=19,59 cap=2048 }
>>>>> [ 8.905538] domain-2: span=0-79 level=NUMA
>>>>> [ 8.909538] groups: 0:{ cluster: false span=0-19,40-59 cap=40960 }, 20:{ cluster: false span=20-39,60-79 cap=40960 }
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume we didn't handle the sg->flags correctly on the domain degeneration. Simply checked the code seems
>>>>> we've already make sg->flags = 0 on degeneration, maybe I need to check where's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currently we only update the groups' flags to 0 for the final lowest domain in [1]. The upper
>>>> domains' group won't be updated if degeneration happens. So we cannot use the suggested approach
>>>> for cluster scanning and sd_cluster per-cpu variable is still needed.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/sched/topology.c?h=v6.4-rc4#n749
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is this an issue? Suppose sched domain A's parent domain
>>> is B, B's parent sched domain is C. When B degenerates, C's child domain
>>> pointer is adjusted to A. However, currently the code does not adjust C's
>>> sched groups' flags. Should we adjust C's sched groups flags to be the same
>>> as A to keep consistency?
>>
>> It depends on whether we're going to use it. currently only asym_smt_can_pull_tasks() uses
>> it within the SMT so I think update the lowest domain's group flag works. For correctness
>> all the domain group's flag should derives from its real child. I tried to solve this at group
>> building but seems hard to do, at that time we don't know whether a domain is going to degenerate
>> or not since the groups it not built.
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>> index 6198fa135176..fe3fd70f2313 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>>> @@ -713,14 +713,13 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct root_domain *rd, int cpu)
>>>
>>> /* Remove the sched domains which do not contribute to scheduling. */
>>> for (tmp = sd; tmp; ) {
>>> - struct sched_domain *parent = tmp->parent;
>>> + struct sched_domain *parent = tmp->parent, *pparent;
>>> if (!parent)
>>> break;
>>>
>>> if (sd_parent_degenerate(tmp, parent)) {
>>> - tmp->parent = parent->parent;
>>> - if (parent->parent)
>>> - parent->parent->child = tmp;
>>> + pparent = parent->parent;
>>> + tmp->parent = pparent;
>>> /*
>>> * Transfer SD_PREFER_SIBLING down in case of a
>>> * degenerate parent; the spans match for this
>>> @@ -728,6 +727,18 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct root_domain *rd, int cpu)
>>> */
>>> if (parent->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING)
>>> tmp->flags |= SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
>>> +
>>> + if (pparent) {
>>> + struct sched_group *sg = pparent->groups;
>>> +
>>> + do {
>>> + sg->flags = tmp->flags;
>>
>> May need to test on some heterogeous platforms. Does it always stand that child domain of CPU from
>> remote group have the same flags with @tmp?
>>
> Good question, for heterogenous platforms sched groups within the same domain might not always
> have the same flags, because if group1 and group2 sit in big/small-core child domain, they could
> have different balance flags in theory. Maybe only update the local group's flag is accurate.
>
> I found Tim has proposed a fix for a similar scenario, and it is for SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY, and it
> should be in tip:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/168372654916.404.6677242284447941021.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> We could adjust it based on his change to remove SD_CLUSTER, or we can
> replace groups->flag with tmp->flag directly, in case we have other flags to be
> adjusted in the future.
>
Thanks for the reference. I think we can handle the SD_CLUSTER in the same way and only update
local groups flag should satisfy our needs. I tried to use the correct child domains to build the
sched groups then all the groups will have the correct flags, but it'll be a bit more complex.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists