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: SWEXMVFwTrVhTfOn2yELP+G+wRC1lepQqqW+X816L4o17VZ4SCeVaO/6WEnuAAoUuTC+QLB6VT
 NlXNy2DyXDZg==
IronPort-SDR: RnjJdHjxXUEuoIsx4JPCo3Gi6lPtlB//y4TB5EWDyRF6ScrmQVCiHocTI00gAkTNaS8+4q5wxH
 4aDjCDHNigFA==
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] Core scheduling v6(Internet mail)
To:     =?UTF-8?B?YmVuYmppYW5nKOiSi+W9qik=?= <benbjiang@tencent.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>
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>
 <5a39735d-dfd8-bdec-f068-81895799640e@linux.intel.com>
 <FAC73DE7-BAE0-42D3-BE9A-227C12275C34@tencent.com>
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <89d973d1-1302-17a6-c647-ea7c538c2747@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:36:22 +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: <FAC73DE7-BAE0-42D3-BE9A-227C12275C34@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/8/14 8:26, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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. :)

From uperf point of review, it can trust cookie-0(I assume we still need
some modifications to change cookie-match to cookie-compatible to allow
ZERO and NONZERO run together).

But from kernel thread point of review, it can NOT trust uperf, unless
we set uperf's cookie to 0.

Thanks,
-Aubrey