linux-kernel - Re: EEVDF regression still exists

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250430100259.GK4439@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 12:02:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Cristian Prundeanu <cpru@...zon.com>
Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Hazem Mohamed Abuelfotoh <abuehaze@...zon.com>,
	Ali Saidi <alisaidi@...zon.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Geoff Blake <blakgeof@...zon.com>, Csaba Csoma <csabac@...zon.com>,
	Bjoern Doebel <doebel@...zon.com>,
	Gautham Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
	Swapnil Sapkal <swapnil.sapkal@....com>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...cle.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: EEVDF regression still exists

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:38:17PM -0500, Cristian Prundeanu wrote:

> [1] https://github.com/aws/repro-collection/blob/main/repros/repro-mysql-EEVDF-regression/results/20250428/README.md

That 'perf sched stats diff' output is completely broken -- probably
trying to diff two different schedstat versions isn't working.

Anyway, looking at the two individual reports side by side:

 - schedule() left the processor idle             -- is up

vs.

 - pull_task() count on cpu newly idle            -- is down
 - load_balance() success count on cpu newly idle -- is down

Which seem related and would suggest we look at newidle balance. One of
the things we've seen before is that newidle was affected by the shorter
slice of EEVDF. But it is also quite possible something changed in the
load-balancer here.

Also of note is that .15 seems to have a lower number of 'ttwu() was
called to wake up on the local cpu' -- which I'm not quite sure how to
rhyme with the previous observation. The newidle thing seems to suggest
not enough migrations, while this would suggest too many migrations.