linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit

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: <20240130235727.wj3texzo4lpbba6b@airbuntu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:57:27 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when
 updating misfit

On 01/30/24 10:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 00:50, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/26/24 15:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > > > TBH I had a bit of confirmation bias that this is a problem based on the fix
> > > > (0ae78eec8aa6) that we had in the past. So on verification I looked at
> > > > balance_interval and this reproducer which is a not the same as the original
> > > > one and it might be exposing another problem and I didn't think twice about it.
> > >
> > > I checked the behavior more deeply and I confirm that I don't see
> > > improvement for the use case described above. I would say that it's
> > > even worse as I can see some runs where the task stays on little
> > > whereas a big core has been added in the affinity. Having in mind that
> > > my system is pretty idle which means that there is almost no other
> > > reason to trigger an ilb than the misfit task, the change in
> > > check_misfit_status() is probably the reason for never kicking an ilb
> > > for such case
> >
> > It seems I reproduced another problem while trying to reproduce the original
> > issue, eh.
> >
> > I did dig more and from what I see the issue is that the rd->overload is not
> > being set correctly. Which I believe what causes the delays (see attached
> > picture how rd.overloaded is 0 with some spikes). Only when CPU7
> > newidle_balance() coincided with rd->overload being 1 that the migration
> > happens. With the below hack I can see that rd->overload is 1 all the time
> 
> But here you rely on another activity happening in CPU7 whereas the

I don't want to rely on that. I think this is a problem too. And this is what
ends up happening from what I see, sometimes at least.

When is it expected for newidle_balance to pull anyway? I agree we shouldn't
rely on it to randomly happen, but if it happens sooner, it should pull, no?

> misfit should trigger by itself the load balance and not expect
> another task waking up then sleeping on cpu7 to trigger a newidle
> balance. We want a normal idle load balance not a newidle_balance

I think there's a terminology problems. I thought you mean newidle_balnce() by
ilb. It seems you're referring to load_balance() called from
rebalance_domains() when tick happens at idle?

I thought this is not kicking. But I just double checked in my traces and I was
getting confused because I was looking at where run_rebalance_domains() would
happen, for example, on CPU2 but the balance would actually be for CPU7.

No clue why it fails to pull.. I can see actually we call load_balance() twice
for some (not all) entries to rebalance_domains(). So we don't always operate
on the two domains. But that's not necessarily a problem.

I think it's a good opportunity to add some tracepoints to help break this path
down. If you have suggestions of things to record that'd be helpful.