linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance

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: <ZTyfoIBpm3lxd8Dy@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 13:44:00 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance

On 2023-10-27 at 19:17:43 +0200, Keisuke Nishimura wrote:
> should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
> When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
> true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
> following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
> example because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.
> 
>         [0, 1] [2, 3]
>          b  b   i  b
> 
> This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
> after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
> siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.
> 
> Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
> Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 2048138ce54b..eff0316d6c7d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -11083,8 +11083,9 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>  		return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
> -		return true;
> +	/* Is there an idle CPU with busy siblings? */
> +	if (idle_smt != -1)
> +		return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
>  
>  	/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
>  	return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;

Looks reasonable to me, if there is other idle SMT(from half-busy core)
in the system, we should leverage that SMT to do the periodic lb.
Per my understanding,

Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>

thanks,
Chenyu