linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix pick_eevdf to always find the correct se

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:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:51:48 -0700
From:   Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        corbet@....net, qyousef@...alina.io, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
        qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com,
        timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
        youssefesmat@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix pick_eevdf to always find the correct se

Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com> writes:

> On 10/13/23 1:51 AM, Benjamin Segall Wrote:
>> Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 10/12/23 5:01 AM, Benjamin Segall Wrote:
>>>> Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/23 8:09 AM, Benjamin Segall Wrote:
>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>> +	 * Now best_left and all of its children are eligible, and we are just
>>>>>> +	 * looking for deadline == min_deadline
>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>> +	node = &best_left->run_node;
>>>>>> +	while (node) {
>>>>>> +		struct sched_entity *se = __node_2_se(node);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* min_deadline is the current node */
>>>>>> +		if (se->deadline == se->min_deadline)
>>>>>> +			return se;
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO it would be better tiebreak on vruntime by moving this hunk to ..
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* min_deadline is in the left branch */
>>>>>>     		if (node->rb_left &&
>>>>>>     		    __node_2_se(node->rb_left)->min_deadline == se->min_deadline) {
>>>>>>     			node = node->rb_left;
>>>>>>     			continue;
>>>>>>     		}
>>>>>
>>>>> .. here, thoughts?
>>>> Yeah, that should work and be better on the tiebreak (and my test code
>>>> agrees). There's an argument that the tiebreak will never really come up
>>>> and it's better to avoid the potential one extra cache line from
>>>> "__node_2_se(node->rb_left)->min_deadline" though.
>>>
>>> I see. Then probably do the same thing in the first loop?
>>>
>> We effectively do that already sorta by accident almost always -
>> computing best and best_left via deadline_gt rather than gte prioritizes
>> earlier elements, which always have a better vruntime.
>
> Sorry for not clarifying clearly about the 'same thing'. What I meant
> was to avoid touch left if the node itself has the min deadline.
>
> @@ -894,6 +894,9 @@ static struct sched_entity *__pick_eevdf(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>                 if (!best || deadline_gt(deadline, best, se))
>                         best = se;
>
> +               if (se->deadline == se->min_deadline)
> +                       break;
> +
>                 /*
>                  * Every se in a left branch is eligible, keep track of the
>                  * branch with the best min_deadline
> @@ -913,10 +916,6 @@ static struct sched_entity *__pick_eevdf(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>                                 break;
>                 }
>
> -               /* min_deadline is at this node, no need to look right */
> -               if (se->deadline == se->min_deadline)
> -                       break;
> -
>                 /* else min_deadline is in the right branch. */
>                 node = node->rb_right;
>         }
>
> (But still thanks for the convincing explanation on fairness.)
>

Ah, yes, in terms of optimizing performance rather than marginal
fairness, that would help.