linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Take the scheduling domain into account in numa balancin

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: <17c4b89f-8585-47f8-837d-907b30002f22@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 21:03:43 +0800
From: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: 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, longman@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com,
 chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, kprateek.nayak@....com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Take the scheduling domain into account in numa
 balancin



在 2025/1/7 18:48, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 08:40:18PM +0800, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> 在 2025/1/3 19:36, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
>>> Your $subject and actual patches do not patch.
>>>
>>> Your subject suggests you're taking the scheduling domains into account
>>> for numa balancing, your actual patches are bunch of special case hacks
>>> that totally ignore the actual sched domains
>>
>> The subject is indeed inappropriate, but the issues mentioned in this
>> patchset still exist, right?
>>
>> - We should not consider isolated CPUs in numa_stats.
>> - We should not select isolated CPUs as candidate CPUs.
>>
>> The current patch handle the above cases with hacks because I thought this
>> kind of change is minimal to fix this issue. Perhaps you have a better
>> solution for this issue? If so, please let me know, and I am more than
>> willing to continue addressing this problem.
> 
> I would much rather see you do what the subject claims :-)
> 
> At the very least you should mask the whole thing against rq->rd->span
> if there is a rq->rd at all ofcourse. This is not just the iteration in
> update_numa_stats() but also the for_each_node_state() iteration.
> 
> I'm not sure there's anything saner than:
> 
> 	cpumask_intersects(rq->rd->span, cpumask_of_node(nid))
> 

Thank you for your suggestion. It will be implemented in the next version.

Thansk.