| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:54:02 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Chunxin Zang <spring.cxz@...il.com>
CC: Honglei Wang <jameshongleiwang@....com>, <mingo@...hat.com>, "Peter
Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
<bristot@...hat.com>, <vschneid@...hat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<yangchen11@...iang.com>, Jerry Zhou <zhouchunhua@...iang.com>, Chunxin Zang
<zangchunxin@...iang.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Reschedule the cfs_rq when current is
ineligible
On 2024-06-12 at 18:39:11 +0800, Chunxin Zang wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 2024, at 13:07, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-05-29 at 22:18:06 +0800, Chunxin Zang wrote:
> >> I found that some tasks have been running for a long enough time and
> >> have become illegal, but they are still not releasing the CPU. This
> >> will increase the scheduling delay of other processes. Therefore, I
> >> tried checking the current process in wakeup_preempt and entity_tick,
> >> and if it is illegal, reschedule that cfs queue.
> >>
> >> When RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled, its behavior essentially remains
> >> consistent with the original process. When NO_RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled,
> >> some additional preemptions will be introduced, but not too many.
> >>
> >> I have pasted some test results below.
> >> I isolated four cores for testing and ran hackbench in the background,
> >> and observed the test results of cyclictest.
> >>
> >> hackbench -g 4 -l 100000000 &
> >> cyclictest --mlockall -D 5m -q
> >>
> >> EEVDF PATCH EEVDF-NO_PARITY PATCH-NO_PARITY
> >>
> >> # Min Latencies: 00006 00006 00006 00006
> >> LNICE(-19) # Avg Latencies: 00191 00133 00089 00066
> >> # Max Latencies: 15442 08466 14133 07713
> >>
> >> # Min Latencies: 00006 00010 00006 00006
> >> LNICE(0) # Avg Latencies: 00466 00326 00289 00257
> >> # Max Latencies: 38917 13945 32665 17710
> >>
> >> # Min Latencies: 00019 00053 00010 00013
> >> LNICE(19) # Avg Latencies: 37151 25852 18293 23035
> >> # Max Latencies: 2688299 4643635 426196 425708
> >>
> >> I captured and compared the number of preempt occurrences in wakeup_preempt
> >> to see if it introduced any additional overhead.
> >>
> >> Similarly, hackbench is used to stress the utilization of four cores to
> >> 100%, and the method for capturing the number of PREEMPT occurrences is
> >> referenced from [1].
> >>
> >> schedstats EEVDF PATCH EEVDF-NO_PARITY PATCH-NO_PARITY CFS(6.5)
> >> .stats.check_preempt_count 5053054 5045388 5018589 5029585
> >> .stats.patch_preempt_count ------- 0020495 ------- 0700670 -------
> >> .stats.need_preempt_count 0570520 0458947 3380513 3116966 1140821
> >>
> >> From the above test results, there is a slight increase in the number of
> >> preempt occurrences in wakeup_preempt. However, the results vary with each
> >> test, and sometimes the difference is not that significant.
> >>
> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230816134059.GC982867@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/T/#m52057282ceb6203318be1ce9f835363de3bef5cb
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chunxin Zang <zangchunxin@...iang.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Chen Yang <yangchen11@...iang.com>
> >>
> >> ------
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - Make the logic that determines the current process as ineligible and
> >> triggers preemption effective only when NO_RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled.
> >> - Update the commit message
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 03be0d1330a6..fa2c512139e5 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -745,6 +745,17 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> >> return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static bool check_entity_need_preempt(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> >> +{
> >> + if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) && se->vlag != se->deadline)
> >> + return true;
> >
> > If I understand correctly, here it intends to check if the current se
> > has consumed its 1st slice after been picked at set_next_entity(), and if yes do a reschedule.
> > check_entity_need_preempt() is added at the end of entity_tick(), which could overwrite
> > the police to reschedule current: (entity_tick()->update_curr()->update_deadline()), only there
> > are more than 1 runnable tasks will the current be preempted, even if it has expired the 1st
> > requested slice.
> >
>
> The purpose of the modification is to increase preemption opportunities without breaking the
> RUN_TO_PARITY rule. However, it clearly introduces some additional preemptions, or perhaps
> there should be a check for the eligibility of the se. Also, to avoid overwriting the scheduling
> strategy in entity_tick, would a modification like the following be more appropriate?
>
I wonder if we can only take care of the NO_RUN_TO_PARITY case? Something like this,
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 03be0d1330a6..5e49a15bbdd3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -745,6 +745,21 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
> }
>
> +static bool check_entity_need_preempt(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) || cfs_rq->nr_running <= 1 ||
!entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se))
return false;
return true;
Thoughts?
thanks,
Chenyu
> + if (cfs_rq->nr_running <= 1)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) && se->vlag != se->deadline
> + && !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se))
> + return true;
> +
> + if (!sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) && !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists