linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 2/6] sched/topology: Record number of cores in sched 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]

Message-ID: <xhsmh4jm9v5sj.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:27:08 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
        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 v3 2/6] sched/topology: Record number of cores in sched
 group

On 10/07/23 15:13, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 21:33 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 07/07/23 15:57, Tim Chen wrote:
>> > From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> >
>> > When balancing sibling domains that have different number of cores,
>> > tasks in respective sibling domain should be proportional to the number
>> > of cores in each domain. In preparation of implementing such a policy,
>> > record the number of tasks in a scheduling group.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/sched/sched.h    |  1 +
>> >  kernel/sched/topology.c | 10 +++++++++-
>> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > index 3d0eb36350d2..5f7f36e45b87 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > @@ -1860,6 +1860,7 @@ struct sched_group {
>> >       atomic_t		ref;
>> >
>> >       unsigned int		group_weight;
>> > +	unsigned int		cores;
>> >       struct sched_group_capacity *sgc;
>> >       int			asym_prefer_cpu;	/* CPU of highest priority in group */
>> >       int			flags;
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > index 6d5628fcebcf..6b099dbdfb39 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > @@ -1275,14 +1275,22 @@ build_sched_groups(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> >  static void init_sched_groups_capacity(int cpu, struct sched_domain *sd)
>> >  {
>> >       struct sched_group *sg = sd->groups;
>> > +	struct cpumask *mask = sched_domains_tmpmask2;
>> >
>> >       WARN_ON(!sg);
>> >
>> >       do {
>> > -		int cpu, max_cpu = -1;
>> > +		int cpu, cores = 0, max_cpu = -1;
>> >
>> >               sg->group_weight = cpumask_weight(sched_group_span(sg));
>> >
>> > +		cpumask_copy(mask, sched_group_span(sg));
>> > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
>> > +			cores++;
>> > +			cpumask_andnot(mask, mask, cpu_smt_mask(cpu));
>> > +		}
>>
>>
>> This rekindled my desire for an SMT core cpumask/iterator. I played around
>> with a global mask but that's a headache: what if we end up with a core
>> whose SMT threads are split across two exclusive cpusets?
>
> Peter and I pondered that for a while.  But it seems like partitioning
> threads in a core between two different sched domains is not a very
> reasonable thing to do.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230612112945.GK4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
>

Thanks for the link. I'll poke at this a bit more, but regardless:

Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>