| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <588c0150-4a2c-414f-9fde-3d18b2bbb3ad@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:12:57 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.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, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...cle.com>,
Adam Li <adamli@...amperecomputing.com>,
Hazem Mohamed Abuelfotoh <abuehaze@...zon.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Proportional newidle balance
On 11/7/25 9:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Add a randomized algorithm that runs newidle balancing proportional to
> its success rate.
>
> This improves schbench significantly:
>
> 6.18-rc4: 2.22 Mrps/s
> 6.18-rc4+revert: 2.04 Mrps/s
> 6.18-rc4+revert+random: 2.18 Mrps/S
>
Could you please share the schbench command?
I see command like "schbench -t 90 -r 30 -i 30" running on 60 core regress.
Will do more iterations to confirm it (to be sure it is not run/run variation)
> Conversely, per Adam Li this affects SpecJBB slightly, reducing it by 1%:
>
> 6.17: -6%
> 6.17+revert: 0%
> 6.17+revert+random: -1%
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> include/linux/sched/topology.h | 3 ++
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> kernel/sched/features.h | 5 ++++
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 7 ++++++
> kernel/sched/topology.c | 6 +++++
> 6 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> @@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ struct sched_domain {
> unsigned int nr_balance_failed; /* initialise to 0 */
>
> /* idle_balance() stats */
> + unsigned int newidle_call;
> + unsigned int newidle_success;
> + unsigned int newidle_ratio;
> u64 max_newidle_lb_cost;
> unsigned long last_decay_max_lb_cost;
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_updat
> EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_compute_energy_tp);
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq, runqueues);
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rnd_state, sched_rnd_state);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_PROXY_EXEC
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(__sched_proxy_exec);
> @@ -8589,6 +8590,8 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
> {
> sched_init_numa(NUMA_NO_NODE);
>
> + prandom_init_once(&sched_rnd_state);
> +
> /*
> * There's no userspace yet to cause hotplug operations; hence all the
> * CPU masks are stable and all blatant races in the below code cannot
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -12146,11 +12146,26 @@ void update_max_interval(void)
> max_load_balance_interval = HZ*num_online_cpus()/10;
> }
>
> -static inline bool update_newidle_cost(struct sched_domain *sd, u64 cost)
> +static inline void update_newidle_stats(struct sched_domain *sd, unsigned int success)
> +{
> + sd->newidle_call++;
> + sd->newidle_success += success;
> +
> + if (sd->newidle_call >= 1024) {
> + sd->newidle_ratio = sd->newidle_success;
> + sd->newidle_call /= 2;
> + sd->newidle_success /= 2;
> + }
Would it be better to >> 1 ? or compiler takes care of it?
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool
> +update_newidle_cost(struct sched_domain *sd, u64 cost, unsigned int success)
> {
> unsigned long next_decay = sd->last_decay_max_lb_cost + HZ;
> unsigned long now = jiffies;
>
> + update_newidle_stats(sd, success);
> +
> if (cost > sd->max_newidle_lb_cost) {
> /*
> * Track max cost of a domain to make sure to not delay the
> @@ -12198,7 +12213,7 @@ static void sched_balance_domains(struct
> * Decay the newidle max times here because this is a regular
> * visit to all the domains.
> */
> - need_decay = update_newidle_cost(sd, 0);
> + need_decay = update_newidle_cost(sd, 0, 0);
> max_cost += sd->max_newidle_lb_cost;
>
> /*
> @@ -12843,6 +12858,22 @@ static int sched_balance_newidle(struct
> break;
>
> if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
> + unsigned int weight = 1;
> +
> + if (sched_feat(NI_RANDOM)) {
> + /*
> + * Throw a 1k sided dice; and only run
> + * newidle_balance according to the success
> + * rate.
> + */
> + u32 d1k = sched_rng() % 1024;
> + weight = 1 + sd->newidle_ratio;
> + if (d1k > weight) {
> + update_newidle_stats(sd, 0);
> + continue;
> + }
> + weight = (1024 + weight/2) / weight;
> + }
>
> pulled_task = sched_balance_rq(this_cpu, this_rq,
> sd, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE,
> @@ -12850,10 +12881,14 @@ static int sched_balance_newidle(struct
>
> t1 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
> domain_cost = t1 - t0;
> - update_newidle_cost(sd, domain_cost);
> -
> curr_cost += domain_cost;
> t0 = t1;
> +
> + /*
> + * Track max cost of a domain to make sure to not delay the
> + * next wakeup on the CPU.
> + */
> + update_newidle_cost(sd, domain_cost, weight * !!pulled_task);
> }
>
> /*
> --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> @@ -121,3 +121,8 @@ SCHED_FEAT(WA_BIAS, true)
> SCHED_FEAT(UTIL_EST, true)
>
> SCHED_FEAT(LATENCY_WARN, false)
> +
> +/*
> + * Do newidle balancing proportional to its success rate using randomization.
> + */
> +SCHED_FEAT(NI_RANDOM, true)
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> #ifndef _KERNEL_SCHED_SCHED_H
> #define _KERNEL_SCHED_SCHED_H
>
> +#include <linux/prandom.h>
> #include <linux/sched/affinity.h>
> #include <linux/sched/autogroup.h>
> #include <linux/sched/cpufreq.h>
> @@ -1348,6 +1349,12 @@ static inline bool is_migration_disabled
> }
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq, runqueues);
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rnd_state, sched_rnd_state);
> +
> +static inline u32 sched_rng(void)
> +{
> + return prandom_u32_state(this_cpu_ptr(&sched_rnd_state));
> +}
>
> #define cpu_rq(cpu) (&per_cpu(runqueues, (cpu)))
> #define this_rq() this_cpu_ptr(&runqueues)
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -1662,6 +1662,12 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_lev
>
> .last_balance = jiffies,
> .balance_interval = sd_weight,
> +
> + /* 50% success rate */
> + .newidle_call = 512,
> + .newidle_success = 256,
> + .newidle_ratio = 512,
> +
> .max_newidle_lb_cost = 0,
> .last_decay_max_lb_cost = jiffies,
> .child = child,
>
>
run hackbench with it, Looks like hackbench does better when utilization is very high.
Otherwise, it regresses slightly.
I compared series applied vs on 65177ea9f64d. Let me know if i need to set anything different.
Will do numbers with more loops/iterations to iron out any run/run variations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists