linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added runqueue clock normalized with cpufreq

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]

Message-ID: <1292596369.2266.286.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:32:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Harald Gustafsson <harald.gustafsson@...csson.com>
Cc:	Dario Faggioli <faggioli@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	Michael Trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added runqueue clock normalized with cpufreq

On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 15:29 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 14:02 +0100, Harald Gustafsson wrote:
> 
> > This is a request for comments on additions to sched deadline v3 patches.
> > Deadline scheduler is the first scheduler (I think) we introduce in Linux that
> > specifies the runtime in time and not only as a weight or a relation.
> > I have introduced a normalized runtime clock dependent on the CPU frequency.
> > This is used, in [PATCH 2/3], to calculate the deadline thread's runtime
> > so that approximately the same number of cycles are giving to the thread
> > independent of the CPU frequency. 
> > 
> > I suggest that this is important for users of hard reservation based schedulers
> > that the intended amount of work can be accomplished independent of the CPU frequency.
> > The usage of CPU frequency scaling is important on mobile devices and hence 
> > the combination of deadline scheduler and cpufreq should be solved.
> 
> > So before I do this for the linux tip I would welcome a discussion about if this
> > is a good idea and also suggestions on how to improve this. 
> 
> I'm thinking this is going about it totally wrong..
> 
> Solving the CPUfreq problem involves writing a SCHED_DEADLINE aware
> CPUfreq governor. The governor must know about the constraints placed on
> the system by the task-set. You simply cannot lower the frequency when
> your system is at u=1.
> 
> Once you have a governor that keeps the freq such that: freq/max_freq >=
> utilization (which is only sufficient for deadline == period systems),
> then you need to frob the SCHED_DEADLINE runtime accounting.
> 
> Adding a complete normalized clock to the system like you've done is a
> total no-go, it adds overhead even for the !SCHED_DEADLINE case.
> 
> The simple solution would be to slow down the runtime accounting of
> SCHED_DEADLINE tasks by freq/max_freq. So instead of having:
> 
>   dl_se->runtime -= delta;
> 
> you do something like:
> 
>   dl_se->runtime -= (freq * delta) / max_freq;
> 
> Which auto-magically grows the actual bandwidth, and since the deadlines
> are wall-time already it all works out nicely. It also keeps the
> overhead inside SCHED_DEADLINE.

This is all assuming lowering the frequency is sensible to begin with in
the first place... but that's all part of the CPUfreq governor, it needs
to find a way to lower energy usage while conforming to the system
constraints.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/