linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:07:28 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
 utilization data

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:44:21AM +0700, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> We have the arch_scale_freq_capacity function that is arch dependent
> and can be used to merge the 2 formula that were described by peter
> above.
> By default, arch_scale_freq_capacity return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE which
> is max capacity
> but when arch_scale_freq_capacity is defined by an architecture,

> arch_scale_freq_capacity returns current_freq * max_capacity/max_freq

However, current_freq is a very fluid thing, it might (and will) change
very rapidly on some platforms.

This is the same point I made earlier, you cannot try and divide out
current_freq from the invariant measure.

> so can't we use arch_scale_freq in your formula ? Taking your formula
> above it becomes:
> next_freq = 1.25 * current_freq * util / arch_scale_freq_capacity()

No, that cannot work, nor makes any sense, per the above.

> With invariance feature, we have:
>
>   next_freq = 1.25 * current_freq * util / (current_freq*max_capacity/max_freq)
>             = 1.25 * util * max_freq / max
>
> which is the formula that has to be used with frequency invariant
> utilization.

Wrong, you cannot talk about current_freq in the invariant case.

> May be we can pass arch_scale_freq_capacity value instead of max one
> as a parameter of update_util function prototype

No, since its a compile time thing, we can simply do:

#ifdef arch_scale_freq_capacity
	next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * max_freq * (util / max)
#else
	next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * current_freq * (util_raw / max)
#endif