Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp334617pxf; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzd1JgfpfLs9BPSrnE9Be5PqWBSLTZfccRXBXWX9wb8EVErGGaSEeGBcRXsPmdtQP5DBpzB X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c45a:: with SMTP id ck26mr2050126ejb.125.1617779475898; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:11:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1617779475; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=VDfPn8Lr72TVNhc7PBhcuO8/g63A3AGJUzqMcKzmHXDqRxpagcdtZBFbl3wJpd+u8d uBZubViy5co2g32l9tpeYvrZhpN7PIQMMyOn5/UKwmsnqSkVXaVxU1/g2u3Z4uaqZ0yE 3vYGWsNvs/EXyvKF+qx6bck1I7mFljHEW2d9aRNlBjJEIUd68o4Y/7uA+ojaZCIhnWJG MWevf0xCNHofaEDma0P4SyGpkkBel7QvKTECv6wYlViGakmM0ox9mbilfV8idy0Rs5ZT hqvyUw/W7ddP3zdYsVaQpOZjkJPteNPD11NjfPV+Nm8DTopB6f3uBPr+yrL0GX6LTB5v Jfww== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:dkim-signature; bh=5/mFayIis/baEhLeL6xfv5yb9Nbsev0wh0qeDzQZWhM=; b=pO0uYwk3RO/smIdbsKF9PG/DQyLMacYLSWUbeYSkJn6iAppETKKnX+sAyBCJjJ2/I0 tvIOp/OOJmK1PHZitvTo0SiJAjVy9tHgThGyPEu3TDXkQh+mJjuVGd+cLSRCGDA8vJ4/ LGbKHxZ94BiZ/4t89PfVAhbZb6nrL488P5tP9VR/ku5h5Jp8SSzOgPc4TCrQ9Iv4DiOX ENOzlJlHJSbrnQIXY9WBX9WS7Erp3z1hw2/Ts86wuUgX6fH7aZg+tj+gPW1kqXhndgtz BWuDk8BXLTWuDWLihgqQaAmtkwp/uVWV7EQ6/4T9TScyWxSrXcGHm6V9wRyucMeh/HZ6 tMlQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=WfRdFcOY; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s6si3477727ejy.440.2021.04.07.00.10.52; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:11:15 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=WfRdFcOY; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237807AbhDFQJB (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:09:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37204 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233538AbhDFQJB (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:09:01 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C870C06174A for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id 7so15467318qka.7 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5/mFayIis/baEhLeL6xfv5yb9Nbsev0wh0qeDzQZWhM=; b=WfRdFcOY43AoAMr0pm9dLpEkYgsoUvSmeUC+VvhykcV+hfMo2J/qRWgjUti58HnLYb t8yGZwOWWHcGhCKSeoC3Co6mX76R3UwmZhdgBJiLfcw/unMhSi+uX+Ah9co/lSiKvoNS 4ao3PKYfbLE7D3KOHQpQUv699Z3WFoqCSXU5jN3d9WYUJnNUW191BfHwSyXxKgJJPLBH WOiTgEV9lC8O65MV0/zeI02YzCNV/JmZkD9ew8eTg7qshdr/id7GRJxcecuyNmwq3Moy A8YrvwfEAcMBxLjIxcVoJF1eQn8M33FubX6sIPuD3Jqbn5ojvqPlf/TRK07RM8u5efao RNZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5/mFayIis/baEhLeL6xfv5yb9Nbsev0wh0qeDzQZWhM=; b=evz14VeECKOnSw5y/s31YD8bVD8jKIG4fd7P08viuvcogE/ChbV8MVfmc8YyXY89DX lvoZI0HDBUljXof917cbOBNErNUF11lAxUn4JYVCEVaM3e8MQjM5BvtUYiCav3poV9cG b8BaD2NjrM/uiAUVcWSqdmZoCwTxIlshhx3Ql9jCX4lAgW3pteuZJpQ3Ekds5+dASnQh KUko3pjR1LS4dF+VG6kzklrcSOZjyNzDU9v+olyOSxZvdabDJjX3KnvEQi2kX5jmDGdt f8rSIBgjnPqGvHI0ZiKYCDBSn+QQNAn/mKUziG2f+tFcYLyV0oIWugS+YrVcdMcypDAX ZJTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530n9IBk3MH9bw006ktRC8YI3+MQX49suVXCNH9ZVwAQkh7GcKs8 lKF4mv3xY66wW5S+oWcZ6is= X-Received: by 2002:a37:4091:: with SMTP id n139mr29677557qka.360.1617725332219; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dhcp-6c-ae-f6-dc-d8-61.cpe.echoes.net. [199.96.183.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n77sm16497912qkn.128.2021.04.06.09.08.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:08:50 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org, chris.hyser@oracle.com, joshdon@google.com, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , Christian Brauner , Zefan Li Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Message-ID: References: <20210401131012.395311786@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 05:32:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I find it difficult to like the proposed interface from the name (the term > > "core" is really confusing given how the word tends to be used internally) > > to the semantics (it isn't like anything else) and even the functionality > > (we're gonna have fixed processors at some point, right?). > > Core is the topological name for the thing that hosts the SMT threads. > Can't really help that. I find the name pretty unfortunate given how overloaded the term is generally and also in kernel but oh well... > > Here are some preliminary thoughts: > > > > * Are both prctl and cgroup based interfaces really necessary? I could be > > being naive but given that we're (hopefully) working around hardware > > deficiencies which will go away in time, I think there's a strong case for > > minimizing at least the interface to the bare minimum. > > I'm not one for cgroups much, so I'll let others argue that case, except > that per systemd and all the other new fangled shit, people seem to use > cgroups a lot to group tasks. So it makes sense to also expose this > through cgroups in some form. All the new fangled things follow a certain usage pattern which makes aligning parts of process tree with cgroup layout trivial, so when restrictions can be applied along the process tree like this and there isn't a particular need for dynamic hierarchical control, there isn't much need for direct cgroup interface. > That said; I've had requests from lots of non security folks about this > feature to help mitigate the SMT interference. > > Consider for example Real-Time. If you have an active SMT sibling, the > CPU performance is much less than it would be when the SMT sibling is > idle. Therefore, for the benefit of determinism, it would be very nice > if RT tasks could force-idle their SMT siblings, and voila, this > interface allows exactly that. > > The same is true for other workloads that care about interference. I see. > > Given how cgroups are set up (membership operations happening only for > > seeding, especially with the new clone interface), it isn't too difficult > > to synchronize process tree and cgroup hierarchy where it matters - ie. > > given the right per-process level interface, restricting configuration for > > a cgroup sub-hierarchy may not need any cgroup involvement at all. This > > also nicely gets rid of the interaction between prctl and cgroup bits. > > I've no idea what you mean :/ The way I use cgroups (when I have to, for > testing) is to echo the pid into /cgroup/foo/tasks. No clone or anything > involved. The usage pattern is creating a new cgroup, seeding it with a process (either writing to tasks or using CLONE_INTO_CGROUP) and let it continue only on that sub-hierarchy, so cgroup hierarchy usually partially overlays process trees. > None of my test machines come up with cgroupfs mounted, and any and all > cgroup setup is under my control. > > > * If we *have* to have cgroup interface, I wonder whether this would fit a > > lot better as a part of cpuset. If you squint just right, this can be > > viewed as some dynamic form of cpuset. Implementation-wise, it probably > > won't integrate with the rest but I think the feature will be less jarring > > as a part of cpuset, which already is a bit of kitchensink anyway. > > Not sure I agree, we do not change the affinity of things, we only > control who's allowed to run concurrently on SMT siblings. There could > be a cpuset partition split between the siblings and it would still work > fine. I see. Yeah, if we really need it, I'm not sure it fits in cgroup interface proper. As I wrote elsewhere, these things are usually implemented on the originating subsystem interface with cgroup ID as a parameter. Thanks. -- tejun