linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] sched_ext: idle: introduce SCX_PICK_IDLE

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: <Z2owJmy22Tk-bl4A@yury-ThinkPad>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:53:21 -0800
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
	Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] sched_ext: idle: introduce SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE

On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 06:48:48PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 04:11:40PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Introduce a flag to restrict the selection of an idle CPU to a specific
> > NUMA node.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/ext.c      |  1 +
> >  kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> > index 143938e935f1..da5c15bd3c56 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> > @@ -773,6 +773,7 @@ enum scx_deq_flags {
> >  
> >  enum scx_pick_idle_cpu_flags {
> >  	SCX_PICK_IDLE_CORE	= 1LLU << 0,	/* pick a CPU whose SMT siblings are also idle */
> > +	SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE	= 1LLU << 1,	/* pick a CPU in the same target NUMA node */
> 
> SCX_FORCE_NODE or SCX_FIX_NODE?
> 
> >  };
> >  
> >  enum scx_kick_flags {
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> > index 444f2a15f1d4..013deaa08f12 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> > @@ -199,6 +199,12 @@ static s32 scx_pick_idle_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus_allowed, int node, u64 f

This function begins with:

 static s32 scx_pick_idle_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus_allowed, int node, u64 flags)
 {
      nodemask_t hop_nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE;
      s32 cpu = -EBUSY;
 
      if (!static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_NUMA, &scx_builtin_idle_per_node))
              return pick_idle_cpu_from_node(cpus_allowed, NUMA_FLAT_NODE, flags);

      ...
 
So if I disable scx_builtin_idle_per_node and then call:

        scx_pick_idle_cpu(some_cpus, numa_node_id(), SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE)

I may get a CPU from any non-local node, right? I think we need to honor user's
request:  

      if (!static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_NUMA, &scx_builtin_idle_per_node))
              return pick_idle_cpu_from_node(cpus_allowed,
                     flags & SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE ? node :  NUMA_FLAT_NODE, flags);

That way the code will be coherent: if you enable idle cpumasks, you
will be able to follow all the NUMA hierarchy. If you disable them, at
least you honor user's request to return a CPU from a given node, if
he's very explicit about his intention.

You can be even nicer:

      if (!static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_NUMA, &scx_builtin_idle_per_node)) {
                node = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(cpus, node, flags);
                if (node == MAX_NUM_NODES && flags & SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE == 0)
                        node = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(cpus, NUMA_FLAT_NODE, flags);

                return node;
      }

> >  		cpu = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(cpus_allowed, n, flags);
> >  		if (cpu >= 0)
> >  			break;
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Check if the search is restricted to the same core or
> > +		 * the same node.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (flags & SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE)
> > +			break;
> 
> Yeah, if you will give a better name for the flag, you'll not have to
> comment the code.
> 
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return cpu;
> > @@ -495,7 +501,8 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
> >  		 * Search for any fully idle core in the same LLC domain.
> >  		 */
> >  		if (llc_cpus) {
> > -			cpu = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(llc_cpus, node, SCX_PICK_IDLE_CORE);
> > +			cpu = scx_pick_idle_cpu(llc_cpus, node,
> > +						SCX_PICK_IDLE_CORE | SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE);
> 
> You change it from scx_pick_idle_cpu() to pick_idle_cpu_from_node()
> in patch 7 just to revert it back in patch 8...
> 
> You can use scx_pick_idle_cpu() in patch 7 already because
> scx_builtin_idle_per_node is always disabled, and you always
> follow the NUMA_FLAT_NODE path.  Here you will just add the
> SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE flag. 
> 
> That's the point of separating functionality and control patches. In
> patch 7 you may need to mention explicitly that your new per-node
> idle masks are unconditionally disabled, and will be enabled in the
> last patch of the series, so some following patches will detail the
> implementation.
> 
> >  			if (cpu >= 0)
> >  				goto cpu_found;
> >  		}
> > @@ -533,7 +540,7 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
> >  	 * Search for any idle CPU in the same LLC domain.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (llc_cpus) {
> > -		cpu = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(llc_cpus, node, 0);
> > +		cpu = scx_pick_idle_cpu(llc_cpus, node, SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE);
> >  		if (cpu >= 0)
> >  			goto cpu_found;
> >  	}
> > -- 
> > 2.47.1