From: "benbjiang(蒋彪)" <benbjiang@tencent.com>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"viremana@linux.microsoft.com" <viremana@linux.microsoft.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Glexiner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Subhra Mazumdar" <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@gmail.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
"Ning, Hongyu" <hongyu.ning@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6(Internet mail)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:26:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FAC73DE7-BAE0-42D3-BE9A-227C12275C34@tencent.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a39735d-dfd8-bdec-f068-81895799640e@linux.intel.com>
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020/8/13 7:08, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:01:24AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>> On 2020/8/10 0:44, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for replying late as I was still looking into the details.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:57:20AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Core scheduling policy:
>>>>> + * - CORE_SCHED_DISABLED: core scheduling is disabled.
>>>>> + * - CORE_COOKIE_MATCH: tasks with same cookie can run
>>>>> + * on the same core concurrently.
>>>>> + * - CORE_COOKIE_TRUST: trusted task can run with kernel
>>>>> thread on the same core concurrently.
>>>>> + * - CORE_COOKIE_LONELY: tasks with cookie can run only
>>>>> + * with idle thread on the same core.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +enum coresched_policy {
>>>>> + CORE_SCHED_DISABLED,
>>>>> + CORE_SCHED_COOKIE_MATCH,
>>>>> + CORE_SCHED_COOKIE_TRUST,
>>>>> + CORE_SCHED_COOKIE_LONELY,
>>>>> +};
>>>>>
>>>>> We can set policy to CORE_COOKIE_TRUST of uperf cgroup and fix this kind
>>>>> of performance regression. Not sure if this sounds attractive?
>>>>
>>>> Instead of this, I think it can be something simpler IMHO:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Consider all cookie-0 task as trusted. (Even right now, if you apply the
>>>> core-scheduling patchset, such tasks will share a core and sniff on each
>>>> other. So let us not pretend that such tasks are not trusted).
>>>>
>>>> 2. All kernel threads and idle task would have a cookie 0 (so that will cover
>>>> ksoftirqd reported in your original issue).
>>>>
>>>> 3. Add a config option (CONFIG_SCHED_CORE_DEFAULT_TASKS_UNTRUSTED). Default
>>>> enable it. Setting this option would tag all tasks that are forked from a
>>>> cookie-0 task with their own cookie. Later on, such tasks can be added to
>>>> a group. This cover's PeterZ's ask about having 'default untrusted').
>>>> (Users like ChromeOS that don't want to userspace system processes to be
>>>> tagged can disable this option so such tasks will be cookie-0).
>>>>
>>>> 4. Allow prctl/cgroup interfaces to create groups of tasks and override the
>>>> above behaviors.
>>>
>>> How does uperf in a cgroup work with ksoftirqd? Are you suggesting I set uperf's
>>> cookie to be cookie-0 via prctl?
>>
>> Yes, but let me try to understand better. There are 2 problems here I think:
>>
>> 1. ksoftirqd getting idled when HT is turned on, because uperf is sharing a
>> core with it: This should not be any worse than SMT OFF, because even SMT OFF
>> would also reduce ksoftirqd's CPU time just core sched is doing. Sure
>> core-scheduling adds some overhead with IPIs but such a huge drop of perf is
>> strange. Peter any thoughts on that?
>>
>> 2. Interface: To solve the performance problem, you are saying you want uperf
>> to share a core with ksoftirqd so that it is not forced into idle. Why not
>> just keep uperf out of the cgroup?
>
> I guess this is unacceptable for who runs their apps in container and vm.
IMHO, just as Joel proposed,
1. Consider all cookie-0 task as trusted.
2. All kernel threads and idle task would have a cookie 0
In that way, all tasks with cookies(including uperf in a cgroup) could run
concurrently with kernel threads.
That could be a good solution for the issue. :)
If with CONFIG_SCHED_CORE_DEFAULT_TASKS_UNTRUSTED enabled,
maybe we should set ksoftirqd’s cookie to be cookie-0 to solve the issue.
Thx.
Regards,
Jiang
>
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
>
>> Then it will have cookie 0 and be able to
>> share core with kernel threads. About user-user isolation that you need, if
>> you tag any "untrusted" threads by adding it to CGroup, then there will
>> automatically isolated from uperf while allowing uperf to share CPU with
>> kernel threads.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts and thanks,
>>
>> - Joel
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Aubrey
>>>>
>>>> 5. Document everything clearly so the semantics are clear both to the
>>>> developers of core scheduling and to system administrators.
>>>>
>>>> Note that, with the concept of "system trusted cookie", we can also do
>>>> optimizations like:
>>>> 1. Disable STIBP when switching into trusted tasks.
>>>> 2. Disable L1D flushing / verw stuff for L1TF/MDS issues, when switching into
>>>> trusted tasks.
>>>>
>>>> At least #1 seems to be biting enabling HT on ChromeOS right now, and one
>>>> other engineer requested I do something like #2 already.
>>>>
>>>> Once we get full-syscall isolation working, threads belonging to a process
>>>> can also share a core so those can just share a core with the task-group
>>>> leader.
>>>>
>>>>>> Is the uperf throughput worse with SMT+core-scheduling versus no-SMT ?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good question, from the data we measured by uperf,
>>>>> SMT+core-scheduling is 28.2% worse than no-SMT, :(
>>>>
>>>> This is worrying for sure. :-(. We ought to debug/profile it more to see what
>>>> is causing the overhead. Me/Vineeth added it as a topic for LPC as well.
>>>>
>>>> Any other thoughts from others on this?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> - Joel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Joel
>>>>>> PS: I am planning to write a patch behind a CONFIG option that tags
>>>>>> all processes (default untrusted) so everything gets a cookie which
>>>>>> some folks said was how they wanted (have a whitelist instead of
>>>>>> blacklist).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-14 0:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-30 21:32 [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 01/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 02/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 03/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 04/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 05/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-21 14:02 ` [RFC PATCH 05/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 06/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-01 23:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-02 0:54 ` Tim Chen
2020-07-02 12:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-02 13:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-05 23:44 ` Tim Chen
2020-07-03 20:21 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-06 14:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-06 14:38 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-06 17:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 07/16] sched/fair: Fix forced idle sibling starvation corner case Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-21 7:35 ` [RFC PATCH 07/16] sched/fair: Fix forced idle sibling starvation corner case(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-22 7:20 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 08/16] sched/fair: wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-22 0:23 ` [RFC PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-24 7:14 ` Aaron Lu
2020-07-24 12:08 ` Jiang Biao
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 10/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-20 4:06 ` [RFC PATCH 10/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-20 6:06 ` Li, Aubrey
[not found] ` <8082F052-2F52-42D3-B396-18A35A94F26F@tencent.com>
2020-07-20 8:03 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-20 8:22 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-20 14:34 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 11/16] sched: migration changes for core scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-22 8:54 ` [RFC PATCH 11/16] sched: migration changes for core scheduling(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-22 12:13 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-22 14:32 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-23 1:57 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-23 2:42 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-23 3:35 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-23 4:23 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-23 5:39 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-23 7:47 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-23 8:06 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-23 8:28 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-23 23:43 ` Aubrey Li
2020-07-24 1:26 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-07-24 2:05 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-24 2:29 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 12/16] sched: cgroup tagging interface for core scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 13/16] sched: Fix pick_next_task() race condition in " Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 14/16] irq: Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-10 12:19 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-10 13:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-13 2:23 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-07-13 15:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-10 13:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-11 1:33 ` Aubrey Li
2020-07-17 23:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-18 17:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-17 23:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-20 3:53 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-20 8:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-20 11:09 ` Vineeth Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 15/16] Documentation: Add documentation on core scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-30 21:32 ` [RFC PATCH 16/16] sched: Debug bits Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-07-31 16:41 ` [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6 Vineeth Pillai
2020-08-03 8:23 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-08-03 16:53 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-05 3:57 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-08-05 6:16 ` [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-08-09 16:44 ` [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6 Joel Fernandes
2020-08-12 2:01 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-08-12 23:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-13 4:28 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-08-14 0:26 ` benbjiang(蒋彪) [this message]
2020-08-14 1:36 ` [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6(Internet mail) Li, Aubrey
2020-08-14 4:04 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-08-14 5:18 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-08-14 7:54 ` benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-08-20 22:37 ` [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6 Joel Fernandes
2020-08-27 0:30 ` Alexander Graf
2020-08-27 1:20 ` Vineeth Pillai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FAC73DE7-BAE0-42D3-BE9A-227C12275C34@tencent.com \
--to=benbjiang@tencent.com \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hongyu.ning@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vineethrp@gmail.com \
--cc=viremana@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).