linux-kernel - [5/11] issue 5: Frequency and uarch invariant task load

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: <1389111587-5923-6-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Date:	Tue,  7 Jan 2014 16:19:41 +0000
From:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc:	rjw@...ysocki.net, markgross@...gnar.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [5/11] issue 5: Frequency and uarch invariant task load

Related to the issue of potential cpu capacity, task load is influenced
directly by the current P-state of the cpu it is running on. For
energy-aware task placement decisions the scheduler would need to
estimate the energy impact of scheduling a specific task on a specific
cpu. Depending on the resulting P-state it may be more energy efficient
to wake-up another cpu (see system 1 in mail 11 for energy efficiency
example).

The frequency and uarch impact can be rather significant. On modern
systems frequency scaling covers a range of 5-6x. On top of that uarch
differences may give another 1.5-3x for a total cpu capacity range
covering >10x.

Measurements on ARM TC2 for a simple periodic test workload (single
task, 16 ms period):

        cpu load        load_avg_contrib (10 sample avg.)
Freq    A7      A15     A7      A15
500     16.76%   9.94%  ~201    ~135
700     12.06%   6.95%  ~145     ~87
1000     8.19%   5.23%  ~103     ~65

The cpu load estimate used for load balancing is based on
load_avg_contrib which means that for this example the load estimate may
vary 3x depending on where tasks are scheduled and the frequency scaling
governors used.

Potential solution: Frequency invariance has been proposed before [1]
where the task load is scaled by the cur/max freq ratio. Another
possibility is to use hardware counters if such are available on the
platform.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/16/289

--
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/