linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: skip the cache hot CPU in select_idle

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:   Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:19:34 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
CC:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        "Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Daniel Bristot de Oliveira" <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: skip the cache hot CPU in
 select_idle_cpu()

Hi Prateek,

thanks for your review,

On 2023-09-11 at 13:59:10 +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Chenyu,
> 
> On 9/11/2023 8:20 AM, Chen Yu wrote:
> >  [..snip..]
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  kernel/sched/features.h |  1 +
> >  kernel/sched/sched.h    |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index e20f50726ab8..fe3b760c9654 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -6629,6 +6629,21 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  	hrtick_update(rq);
> >  	now = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
> >  	p->se.prev_sleep_time = task_sleep ? now : 0;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If this rq will become idle, and dequeued task is
> > +	 * a short sleeping one, check if we can reserve
> > +	 * this idle CPU for that task for a short while.
> > +	 * During this reservation period, other wakees will
> > +	 * skip this 'idle' CPU in select_idle_cpu(), and this
> > +	 * short sleeping task can pick its previous CPU in
> > +	 * select_idle_sibling(), which brings better cache
> > +	 * locality.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (sched_feat(SIS_CACHE) && task_sleep && !rq->nr_running &&
> > +	    p->se.sleep_avg && p->se.sleep_avg < sysctl_sched_migration_cost)
> > +		rq->cache_hot_timeout = now + p->se.sleep_avg;
> > +#endif
> >  }
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > @@ -6982,8 +6997,13 @@ static inline int find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p
> >  static inline int __select_idle_cpu(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> >  	if ((available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu)) &&
> > -	    sched_cpu_cookie_match(cpu_rq(cpu), p))
> > +	    sched_cpu_cookie_match(cpu_rq(cpu), p)) {
> > +		if (sched_feat(SIS_CACHE) &&
> > +		    sched_clock_cpu(cpu) < cpu_rq(cpu)->cache_hot_timeout)
> > +			return -1;
> 
> Just wondering,
> 
> Similar to how select_idle_core() caches the "idle_cpu" if it ends up
> finding one in its search for an idle core, would returning a "cache-hot
> idle CPU" be better than returning previous CPU / current CPU if all
> idle CPUs found during the search in select_idle_cpu() are marked
> cache-hot?
> 

This is a good point, we can optimize this further. Currently I only
send a simple version to desmonstrate how we can leverage the task's
sleep time.

> Speaking of cache-hot idle CPU, is netperf actually more happy with
> piling on current CPU?

Yes. Per my previous test, netperf of TCP_RR/UDP_RR really likes to
put the waker and wakee together.

> I ask this because the logic seems to be
> reserving the previous CPU for a task that dislikes migration but I
> do not see anything in the wake_affine_idle() path that would make the
> short sleeper proactively choose the previous CPU when the wakeup is
> marked with the WF_SYNC flag. Let me know if I'm missing something?
> 

If I understand correctly, WF_SYNC is to let the wakee to woken up
on the waker's CPU, rather than the wakee's previous CPU, because
the waker goes to sleep after wakeup. SIS_CACHE mainly cares about
wakee's previous CPU. We can only restrict that other wakee does not
occupy the previous CPU, but do not enhance the possibility that
wake_affine_idle() chooses the previous CPU.

Say, there are two tasks t1, t2. t1's previous CPU is p1.
We don't enhance that when t1 is woken up, wake_affine_idle() will
choose p1 or not, but we makes sure t2 will not choose p1.

> To confirm this can you look at the trend in migration count with and
> without the series? Also the ratio of cache-hot idle CPUs to number
> of CPUs searched can help estimate overheads of additional search - I
> presume SIS_UTIL is efficient at curbing the additional search in
> a busy system.

OK, I'll collect these statistics.

> 
> In the meantime, I'll queue this series for testing on my end too.

Thanks again for your time.


thanks,
Chenyu