On 2021/3/22 20:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:31:09PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Please let me know if I put cookie match check at the right position
>> in task_hot(), if so, I'll obtain some performance data of it.
>>
On 2021/3/22 20:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:31:09PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Please let me know if I put cookie match check at the right position
>> in task_hot(), if so, I'll obtain some performance data of it.
>>
On 2021/3/22 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Do you have any suggestions before we drop it?
>
> Yeah, how about you make it part of task_hot() ? Have task_hot() refuse
> migration it the cookie doesn't match.
>
> task_hot() is a hint and will get ignored when appropriate.
>
Please let me
On 2021/3/22 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 09:34:00PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 2021/3/20 23:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> @@ -753
Hi Barry,
On 2021/3/21 6:14, Barry Song wrote:
> update_idle_core() is only done for the case of sched_smt_present.
> but test_idle_cores() is done for all machines even those without
> smt.
The patch looks good to me.
May I know for what case we need to keep CONFIG_SCHED_SMT for non-smt
Hi Peter,
On 2021/3/20 23:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> @@ -7530,8 +7543,9 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct
>> lb_env *env)
>> * We do not migrate tasks that are:
>> * 1) throttled_lb_pair,
On 2021/2/24 16:15, Aubrey Li wrote:
> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
> this is caused by a race window between the first nr_running check
> of the busiest runqueue and its nr_running recheck in detach_tasks.
>
> Before the busiest runqueue is locked, the tasks
On 2021/3/8 19:30, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 14:51, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>&
Hi Peter,
On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is
On 2021/2/24 1:33, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 06:41, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, I just returned from Chinese New Year holiday.
>>
>> On 2021/1/25 22:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>
Hi Vincent,
Sorry for the delay, I just returned from Chinese New Year holiday.
On 2021/1/25 22:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:00, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/1/25 18:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrot
On 2021/1/27 21:51, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Changelog since v4
> o Avoid use of intermediate variable during select_idle_cpu
>
> Changelog since v3
> o Drop scanning based on cores, SMT4 results showed problems
>
> Changelog since v2
> o Remove unnecessary parameters
> o Update nr during scan only
On 2021/1/25 22:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:00, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/1/25 18:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A long-tail load balance cost is obse
On 2021/1/25 18:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
>> this is caused by a race window between the first nr_running check
>> of the busiest runqueue and its nr_running recheck in
On 2021/1/25 17:04, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:29:47PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>> hackbench -l 2560 -g 1 on 8 cores arm64
>>>>> v5.11-rc4 : 1.355 (+/- 7.96)
>>>>> + sis improvement : 1.923 (+/- 25%)
>>>>> + the
On 2021/1/25 17:06, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:02:58PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
>> this is caused by a race window between the first nr_running check
>> of the busiest runqueue and its nr_running recheck in
On 2021/1/22 21:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 11:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Mel,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 13:02, Mel Gorman
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:33:04PM +0100, Vincent
On 2021/1/15 18:08, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
>
> Both select_idle_core() and select_idle_cpu() do a loop over the same
> cpumask. Observe that by clearing the already visited CPUs, we can
> fold the iteration and iterate a core at a time.
>
> All we need to do is
On 2021/1/15 18:08, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
>
> Instead of calculating how many (logical) CPUs to scan, compute how
> many cores to scan.
>
> This changes behaviour for anything !SMT2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
> ---
>
Hi Peter,
On 2020/12/15 0:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hai, here them patches Mel asked for. They've not (yet) been through the
> robots, so there might be some build fail for configs I've not used.
>
> Benchmark time :-)
>
Here is the data on my side, benchmarks were tested on a x86 4 sockets
Hi Bao Hua,
Sorry I almost missed this message, :(
On 2020/12/14 7:29, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> The patch looks great. But I didn't find any hackbench improvement
> on kunpeng 920 which has 24 cores for each llc span. Llc span is also
> one numa node. The topology is
On 2020/12/15 15:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:36:35AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/12/15 0:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> We compute the average cost of the total scan, but then use it as a
>>> per-cpu scan cost when computi
On 2020/12/15 0:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We compute the average cost of the total scan, but then use it as a
> per-cpu scan cost when computing the scan proportion. Fix this by
> properly computing a per-cpu scan cost.
>
> This also fixes a bug where we would terminate early (!--nr, case) and
On 2020/12/10 19:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:23:47PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> I ran this patch with tbench on top of of the schedstat patches that
>>> track SIS efficiency. The tracking adds overhead so it's not a perfect
>>> performance
On 2020/12/11 23:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 16:19, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in
On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is cleared in
On 2020/12/10 19:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:23:47PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> I ran this patch with tbench on top of of the schedstat patches that
>>> track SIS efficiency. The tracking adds overhead so it's not a perfect
>>> performance
Hi Mel,
On 2020/12/9 22:36, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 02:24:04PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is
On 2020/12/8 23:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
> even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
> check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of initialising the CPU
> mask from the average scan cost.
>
On 2020/12/9 21:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 11:58, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/9 16:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 09 déc. 2020 à 14:24:04 (+0800), Aubrey Li a écrit :
>>>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched
On 2020/12/9 17:05, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:28:11PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
>>>> else
>>>> nr = 4;
>>>
On 2020/12/9 16:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 déc. 2020 à 14:24:04 (+0800), Aubrey Li a écrit :
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is
On 2020/12/9 0:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 16:35, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
>> even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
>> check and while we are at it, exclude the cost
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the comments.
On 2020/12/8 22:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:49:57AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index c4da7e17b906..b8af602dea79 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
On 2020/12/7 23:42, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:04:41PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 10:15, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a minimal series to reduce the amount of runqueue scanning in
>>> select_idle_sibling in the worst case.
>>>
>>> Patch 1
On 2020/12/4 21:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 1
On 2020/12/4 21:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 1
On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle
On 2020/12/2 22:09, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
>
> I still placed the patch embedded in this thread, welcome any comments.
Sorry, this version needs more work, refined as below, and I realized
I should place a version number to the patch, start from v2 now.
Thanks
Hi Mel,
On 2020/11/26 20:13, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:57:07PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Hi Robot,
>>
>> On 2020/11/25 17:09, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> Greeting,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed a -29.5% regression of netperf.
Hi Balbir,
I still placed the patch embedded in this thread, welcome any comments.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
==
>From d64455dcaf47329673903a68a9df1151400cdd7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aubrey Li
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:53:30 +
On 2020/11/30 22:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 15:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> The clearing of SMT siblings from the SIS mask before checking for an idle
>> core is a small but unnecessary cost. Defer the clearing of the siblings
>> until the scan moves to the next potential
On 2020/11/30 18:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 00:20, Joel Fernandes (Google)
> wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> - Don't migrate if there is a cookie mismatch
>> Load balance tries to move task from busiest CPU to the
>> destination CPU. When core scheduling is
On 2020/11/30 17:33, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 05:26:31PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/26 16:32, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:20:41AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/26 6:57, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>&g
On 2020/11/26 16:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 14:37, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/11/25 16:31, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wro
On 2020/11/26 16:32, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:20:41AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/26 6:57, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:12:53AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/24 23:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>&g
On 2020/11/26 6:57, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:12:53AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/24 23:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:36:10PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>&g
On 2020/11/25 16:31, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>
>>> Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
>>>> Hi V
On 2020/11/24 23:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:36:10PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Skip this cpu if source task's cookie does not match
&g
On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 13:15,
Hi Vincent,
On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask to be a
On 2020/11/24 7:35, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:07:27PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/23 12:38, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>>>
&
On 2020/11/23 12:38, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>
>> When a sibling is forced-idle to match the core-cookie; search for
>> matching tasks to fill the core.
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent
On 2020/11/23 7:54, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> - Don't migrate if there is a cookie mismatch
>> Load balance tries to move task from busiest CPU to the
>> destination CPU. When core scheduling
On 2020/11/19 16:19, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 2020/11/18 21:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 04:48, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Aubre
Hi Vincent,
On 2020/11/18 21:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 04:48, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask
On 2020/11/18 20:06, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 16/11/20 20:04, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask to be a wakeup target.
On 2020/11/12 18:57, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 10/21/20 23:03, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>> and when the CPU exits idle, its bit will be cleared.
On 2020/11/9 23:54, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 09/11/20 13:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/7 5:20, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/10/20 16:03, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> From: Aubrey Li
>>>>
>>>> Added idle cpuma
On 2020/11/7 5:20, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 21/10/20 16:03, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>> and when the CPU exits idle, its bit will be
On 2020/11/6 15:58, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 17:05, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>> and when the CPU exits idle, its bit
On 2020/11/7 1:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 10:58:58AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>>>
>>> -- workload D, new added syscall workload, p
On 2020/10/30 21:26, Ning, Hongyu wrote:
> On 2020/10/20 9:43, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> Eighth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature.
>>
>> Core scheduling is a feature that allows only trusted tasks to run
>> concurrently on cpus sharing compute resources (eg: hyperthreads on a
>>
Hi Valentin,
Thanks for your reply.
On 2020/11/4 3:27, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 21/10/20 16:03, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 6b3b59cc51d6..088d1995594f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@
On 2020/10/26 17:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 08:27:16AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/24/20 7:10 AM, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index 93a3b874077d..4cae5ac48b60 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
On 2020/10/20 9:43, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> core.c is already huge. The core-tagging interface code is largely
> independent of it. Move it to its own file to make both files easier to
> maintain.
>
> Tested-by: Julien Desfossez
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
> ---
>
On 2020/10/24 20:27, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
>
>
> On 10/24/20 7:10 AM, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 93a3b874077d..4cae5ac48b60 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -4428,12 +4428,14 @@
On 2020/10/24 5:47, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:25:38PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>> @@ -2517,6 +2528,7 @@ const struct sched_class dl_sched_class
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>>>
On 2020/10/22 23:25, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:59 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/10/20 9:43, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>>
>>> Because sched_class::pick_next_task() also implies
>
On 2020/10/20 9:43, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> Because sched_class::pick_next_task() also implies
> sched_class::set_next_task() (and possibly put_prev_task() and
> newidle_balance) it is not state invariant. This makes it unsuitable
> for remote task selection.
>
On 2020/10/20 9:43, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Core-scheduling prevents hyperthreads in usermode from attacking each
> other, but it does not do anything about one of the hyperthreads
> entering the kernel for any reason. This leaves the door open for MDS
> and L1TF attacks with concurrent
On 2020/9/26 0:45, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le vendredi 25 sept. 2020 à 17:21:46 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
>> Hi Vicent,
>>
>> On 2020/9/24 21:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you mind share uperf(netperf load) result on y
Hi Vicent,
On 2020/9/24 21:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Would you mind share uperf(netperf load) result on your side? That's the
workload I have seen the most benefit this patch contributed under heavy
load level.
>>>
>>> with uperf, i've got the same kind of result as sched
On 2020/9/16 19:00, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:31:03PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>> and when the CPU exits idle, its bit will be cleared.
>>
On 2020/9/17 4:53, chris hyser wrote:
> On 9/16/20 10:24 AM, chris hyser wrote:
>> On 9/16/20 8:57 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> Here are the uperf results of the various patchsets. Note, that disabling
>>>> smt is better for these tests and that that presumably re
On 2020/9/15 17:23, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 10:47, Jiang Biao wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Vincent
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 20:26, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:59, Jiang Biao wrote:
Hi, Aubrey
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 23:48,
On 2020/9/12 7:04, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/9/12 0:28, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> On 09/10/20 13:42, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>>>
On 2020/9/12 0:28, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 09/10/20 13:42, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Added idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, its corresponding bit in the idle cpumask will be set,
>> and when the CPU exits idle, its bit will be cleared.
>>
>> When a task wakes
On 2020/8/14 12:04, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/8/14 8:26, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On
On 2020/8/14 8:26, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Li, Aubrey 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 2020/8/13 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 det
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:
>> + * -
On 2020/8/4 0:53, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/1 5:32, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>>> Sixth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature.
>>>
>>> Core scheduling is
On 2020/7/1 5:32, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> Sixth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature.
>
> Core scheduling is a feature that allows only trusted tasks to run
> concurrently on cpus sharing compute resources (eg: hyperthreads on a
> core). The goal is to mitigate the core-level
On 2020/7/24 9:26, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 24, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:28 PM benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Li, Aubrey wro
On 2020/7/23 15:47, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/23 12:23, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2
On 2020/7/23 12:23, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/23 10:42, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 2020/7/23 10:42, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/22 22:32, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:13 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>&
On 2020/7/22 22:32, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:13 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/22 16:54, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>> Hi, Aubrey,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 5:32 AM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai
>>>
On 2020/7/22 16:54, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi, Aubrey,
>
>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 5:32 AM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> - Don't migrate if there is a cookie mismatch
>> Load balance tries to move task from busiest CPU to the
>> destination CPU. When core
On 2020/7/20 15:23, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Li, Aubrey > <mailto:aubrey...@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/20 12:06, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 5:3
On 2020/7/20 12:06, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 5:32 AM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>
>> When a sibling is forced-idle to match the core-cookie; search for
>> matching tasks to fill the core.
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an
Hi Joel/Vineeth,
On 2020/7/1 5:32, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
>
> With current core scheduling patchset, non-threaded IRQ and softirq
> victims can leak data from its hyperthread to a sibling hyperthread
> running an attacker.
>
> For MDS, it is possible
Hi Vineeth,
On 2020/6/26 4:12, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM vpillai wrote:
>>
>>
>> Fifth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature.
>>
> Its probably time for an iteration and We are planning to post v6 based
> on this branch:
>
On 2020/6/14 2:59, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:25 PM Joel Fernandes
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so I take it that you will make it so in v6 then, unless of course
>> someone else objects.
>>
> Yes, just wanted to hear from Aubrey, Tim and others as well to see
> if we have
On 2019/10/8 14:44, linmiaohe wrote:
> Add suitable additional cc's as Andrew Morton suggested.
> Get cc list from get_maintainer script:
> [root@localhost mm]# ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> 0001-proc-fix-confusing-macro-arg-name.patch
> Alexey Dobriyan (reviewer:PROC FILESYSTEM)
>
On 2019/8/9 20:54, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Some newer machines do not advertise legacy timers. The kernel can handle
> that situation if the TSC and the CPU frequency are enumerated by CPUID or
> MSRs and the CPU supports TSC deadline timer. If the CPU does not support
> TSC deadline timer the
On 2019/8/1 16:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:35 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:26 PM Daniel Drake wrote:
> global_clock_event is NULL here. This is a "reduced
On 2019/7/26 23:21, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On 25-Jul-2019 10:30:03 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>
>> I tried a different approach based on vruntime with 3 patches following.
> [...]
>
> We have experimented with this new patchset and indeed the fairness is
> now much better. Interactive tasks with v3
On 2019/7/25 22:30, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:26:46PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> The granularity period of util_avg seems too large to decide task priority
>> during pick_task(), at least it is in my case, cfs_prio_less() always picked
>> core max task, so pick_task() eventually
1 - 100 of 512 matches
Mail list logo
