linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/10] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

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: <CAKfTPtC9tew3wzoWfyxOWJR8MtpL+jjwWoA9Lkpk4opVUEXcxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:45:45 +0100
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc:	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
	"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
	"nicolas.pitre@...aro.org" <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/10] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

On 21 November 2014 at 13:37, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:54:47PM +0000, Vincent Guittot wrote:

>>
>> +     /*
>> +      * The dst_cpu is idle and the src_cpu CPU has only 1 CFS task.
>> +      * It's worth migrating the task if the src_cpu's capacity is reduced
>> +      * because of other sched_class or IRQs whereas capacity stays
>> +      * available on dst_cpu.
>> +      */
>> +     if ((env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE) &&
>> +                     (env->src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running == 1)) {
>> +             unsigned long src_eff_capacity, dst_eff_capacity;
>> +
>> +             dst_eff_capacity = 100;
>> +             dst_eff_capacity *= capacity_of(env->dst_cpu);
>> +             dst_eff_capacity *= capacity_orig_of(env->src_cpu);
>> +
>> +             src_eff_capacity = sd->imbalance_pct;
>> +             src_eff_capacity *= capacity_of(env->src_cpu);
>> +             src_eff_capacity *= capacity_orig_of(env->dst_cpu);
>
> Do we need to scale by capacity_orig? Shouldn't the absolute capacity be
> better?
>
> if (capacity_of(env->src) * sd->imbalance_pct < capacity_of(env->dst) *
> 100) ?

we don't want to compare absolute capacity between CPUs but to compare
the reduction of their capacity because we want to choose the CPU
which is less used  by RT tasks or irq

Regards,
Vincent
>
> Isn't it the absolute available capacity that matters? For SMP
> capacity_orig is the same and cancels out and doesn't change anything.
> For big.LITTLE we would rather have the task run on a big where rt/irq
> eats 30% than a little cpu where rq/irq eats 5%, assuming big capacity
> is much bigger than little capacity so the absolute available capacity
> (~cycles/time) is larger on the big cpu.
> --
> 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/
--
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/