Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: SQbbSeBalEOukS2Xb6ZmeqCo5vOT1SvG5gINMP0UwnwpXRUmAkJziPpyus6mGZcNbWempls3Bu
 jcJbcqKjHB9A==
IronPort-SDR: /ACyUcJn18/+Hkmk3BvP4mZwpa4w3qWHFYTA8ZSQmPHlSyfZdzHr+Vb6Tj3r2mtr53YbTLCQzj
 gnVZ7u3ZhwRA==
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     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>,
        =?UTF-8?B?YmVuYmppYW5nKOiSi+W9qik=?= <benbjiang@tencent.com>
References: <cover.1593530334.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <6d0f9fc0-2e34-f559-29bc-4143e6d3f751@linux.intel.com>
 <CAEXW_YS6oW_AAkmOuXNMCj_N5763aG9SXEcWz_onPhQQU2TZ0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <f986f5a9-5c97-10ed-1e44-84bbd929e605@linux.intel.com>
 <20200809164408.GA342447@google.com>
 <162a03cc-66c3-1999-83a2-deaad5aa04c8@linux.intel.com>
 <20200812230850.GA3511387@google.com>
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <5a39735d-dfd8-bdec-f068-81895799640e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:28:17 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200812230850.GA3511387@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

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).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>