linux-kernel - Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:33:03 +0100
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, omer.akram@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes

On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

[...]

>> But this test only makes sure that we don't see any ghost contribution
>> (from non-existing cpus) any more.
>>
>> We should study the tg->se[i]->avg.load_avg for the hierarchy of tg's
>> (with the highest tg having a task enqueued) a little bit more, with and
>> without your v5 'sched: reflect sched_entity move into task_group's load'.
> 
> Can you elaborate ?

I try :-)

I thought I will see some different behaviour because of the fact that
the tg se's are initialized differently [1024 versus 0].

But I can't spot any difference. The test case is running a sysbench
thread affine to cpu1 in tg_root/tg_1/tg_11/tg_111 on tip/sched/core on
an ARM64 Juno (6 logical cpus).
The moment the sysbench task is put into tg_111
tg_111->se[1]->avg.load_avg gets updated to 0 any way because of the
huge time difference between creating this tg and attaching a task to
it. So the tg->se[2]->avg.load_avg signals for tg_111, tg_11 and tg_1
look exactly the same w/o and w/ your patch.

But your patch helps in this (very synthetic) test case as well. W/o
your patch I see remaining tg->load_avg for tg_1 and tg_11 after the
test case has finished because the tg's were exclusively used on cpu1.

# cat /proc/sched_debug

 cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1
   .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
   .tg_load_avg                   : 5120 (5 (unused cpus) * 1024 * 1)
 cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1/tg_11/tg_111
   .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
   .tg_load_avg                   : 0
 cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1/tg_11
   .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
   .tg_load_avg                   : 5120

With your patch applied all the .tg_load_avg are 0.