linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH Resend v6] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable

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: <1366364246.4708.79.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:26 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Resend v6] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable_avg update
 with rt tasks

On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 11:21 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 10:50 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: 
> > On 19 April 2013 10:14, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 09:49 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> On 19 April 2013 06:30, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 18:34 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> >> The current update of the rq's load can be erroneous when RT tasks are
> > >> >> involved
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The update of the load of a rq that becomes idle, is done only if the avg_idle
> > >> >> is less than sysctl_sched_migration_cost. If RT tasks and short idle duration
> > >> >> alternate, the runnable_avg will not be updated correctly and the time will be
> > >> >> accounted as idle time when a CFS task wakes up.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A new idle_enter function is called when the next task is the idle function
> > >> >> so the elapsed time will be accounted as run time in the load of the rq,
> > >> >> whatever the average idle time is. The function update_rq_runnable_avg is
> > >> >> removed from idle_balance.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> When a RT task is scheduled on an idle CPU, the update of the rq's load is
> > >> >> not done when the rq exit idle state because CFS's functions are not
> > >> >> called. Then, the idle_balance, which is called just before entering the
> > >> >> idle function, updates the rq's load and makes the assumption that the
> > >> >> elapsed time since the last update, was only running time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As a consequence, the rq's load of a CPU that only runs a periodic RT task,
> > >> >> is close to LOAD_AVG_MAX whatever the running duration of the RT task is.
> > >> >
> > >> > Why do we care what rq's load says, if the only thing running is a
> > >> > periodic RT task?  I _think_ I recall that stuff being put under the
> > >>
> > >> cfs scheduler will use a wrong rq load the next time it wants to schedule a task
> > >>
> > >> > throttle specifically to not waste cycles doing that on every
> > >> > microscopic idle.
> > >>
> > >> yes but this lead to the wrong computation of runnable_avg_sum. To be
> > >> more precise, we only need to call __update_entity_runnable_avg,
> > >> __update_tg_runnable_avg is not mandatory in this step.
> > >
> > > If it only scares fair class tasks away from the periodic rt load, that
> > > seems like a benefit to me, not a liability.  If we really really need
> > 
> > I'm not sure that such behavior that is only based on erroneous value,
> > is good one.
> > 
> > > perfect load numbers, fine, we have to eat some cycles, but when I look
> > > at it, it looks like one of those "Perfect is the enemy of good" things.
> > 
> > The target is not perfect number but good enough to be usable. The
> > systctl_migration_cost threshold is good for idle balancing but can
> > generates wrong load value
> 
> But again, why do we care?  To be able to mix rt and fair loads and
> still make pretty mixed load utilization numbers?  Paying a general case
> fast path price to make strange (to me) load utilization numbers pretty
> is not very attractive.

So I'm not convinced this is a good thing to do, but it's not my call,
that's Peter and Ingos job, so having expressed my opinion, I'll shut up
and let them do their thing ;-)

-Mike

--
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/