linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue

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: <20241105152010.GA33795@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:20:10 -0500
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kprateek.nayak@....com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
	youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:05:12AM +0100 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-11-04 at 08:05 -0500, Phil Auld wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 05:32:14AM +0100 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The buddy being preempted certainly won't be wakeup migrated...
> >
> > Not the waker who gets preempted but the wakee may be a bit more
> > sticky on his current cpu and thus stack more since he's still
> > in that runqueue.
> 
> Ah, indeed, if wakees don't get scraped off before being awakened, they
> can and do miss chances at an idle CPU according to trace_printk().
> 
> I'm undecided if overall it's boon, bane or even matters, as there is
> still an ample supply of wakeup migration, but seems it can indeed
> inject wakeup latency needlessly, so <sharpens stick>...
> 
> My box booted and neither become exceptionally noisy nor inexplicably
> silent in.. oh, minutes now, so surely yours will be perfectly fine.
> 
> After one minute of lightly loaded box browsing, trace_printk() said:
> 
>   645   - racy peek says there is a room available
>    11   - cool, reserved room is free
>   206   - no vacancy or wakee pinned
> 38807   - SIS accommodates room seeker
> 
> The below should improve the odds, but high return seems unlikely.
>

Thanks, I'll give it a spin with the nr_cpus_allowed bit.


Cheers,
Phil



> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c |    9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3790,7 +3790,13 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_str
>  	rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
>  	if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
>  		update_rq_clock(rq);
> -		if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> +		/*
> +		 * If wakee is mobile and the room it reserved is occupied, let it try to migrate.
> +		 */
> +		if (p->se.sched_delayed && rq->nr_running > 1 && cpumask_weight(p->cpus_ptr) > 1) {
> +			dequeue_task(rq, p, DEQUEUE_SLEEP | DEQUEUE_DELAYED | DEQUEUE_NOCLOCK);
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		} else if (p->se.sched_delayed)
>  			enqueue_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK | ENQUEUE_DELAYED);
>  		if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
>  			/*
> @@ -3802,6 +3808,7 @@ static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_str
>  		ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
>  		ret = 1;
>  	}
> +out_unlock:
>  	__task_rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
> 
>  	return ret;
> 
> 

--