| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150911074651.GB17135@leoy-linaro>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:46:51 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"yuyang.du@...el.com" <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
"sgurrappadi@...dia.com" <sgurrappadi@...dia.com>,
"pang.xunlei@....com.cn" <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by
capacity_orig
Hi Morten,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Something like teh below..
> > >
> > > Another thing to ponder; the downside of scaled_delta_w is that its
> > > fairly likely delta is small and you loose all bits, whereas the weight
> > > is likely to be large can could loose a fwe bits without issue.
> >
> > That issue applies both to load and util.
> >
> > >
> > > That is, in fixed point scaling like this, you want to start with the
> > > biggest numbers, not the smallest, otherwise you loose too much.
> > >
> > > The flip side is of course that now you can share a multiplcation.
> >
> > But if we apply the scaling to the weight instead of time, we would only
> > have to apply it once and not three times like it is now? So maybe we
> > can end up with almost the same number of multiplications.
> >
> > We might be loosing bits for low priority task running on cpus at a low
> > frequency though.
>
> Something like the below. We should be saving one multiplication.
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:15:40 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Scale load/util contribution rather than time
>
> When updating load/util tracking the time delta might be very small (1)
> in many cases, scaling it futher down with frequency and cpu invariance
> scaling might cause us to loose precision. Instead of scaling time we
> can scale the weight of the task for load and the capacity for
> utilization. Both weight (>=15) and capacity should be significantly
> bigger in most cases. Low priority tasks might still suffer a bit but
> worst should be improved, as weight is at least 15 before invariance
> scaling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 9301291..d5ee72a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2519,8 +2519,6 @@ static u32 __compute_runnable_contrib(u64 n)
> #error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit"
> #endif
>
> -#define cap_scale(v, s) ((v)*(s) >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT)
> -
> /*
> * We can represent the historical contribution to runnable average as the
> * coefficients of a geometric series. To do this we sub-divide our runnable
> @@ -2553,10 +2551,10 @@ static __always_inline int
> __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> unsigned long weight, int running, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> {
> - u64 delta, scaled_delta, periods;
> + u64 delta, periods;
> u32 contrib;
> - unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
> - unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> + unsigned int delta_w, decayed = 0;
> + unsigned long scaled_weight = 0, scale_freq, scale_freq_cpu = 0;
>
> delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> /*
> @@ -2577,8 +2575,13 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> return 0;
> sa->last_update_time = now;
>
> - scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> - scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> + if (weight || running)
> + scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> + if (weight)
> + scaled_weight = weight * scale_freq >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> + if (running)
> + scale_freq_cpu = scale_freq * arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu)
> + >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
maybe below question is stupid :)
Why not calculate the scaled_weight depend on cpu's capacity as well?
So like: scaled_weight = weight * scale_freq_cpu.
> /* delta_w is the amount already accumulated against our next period */
> delta_w = sa->period_contrib;
> @@ -2594,16 +2597,15 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> * period and accrue it.
> */
> delta_w = 1024 - delta_w;
> - scaled_delta_w = cap_scale(delta_w, scale_freq);
> if (weight) {
> - sa->load_sum += weight * scaled_delta_w;
> + sa->load_sum += scaled_weight * delta_w;
> if (cfs_rq) {
> cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum +=
> - weight * scaled_delta_w;
> + scaled_weight * delta_w;
> }
> }
> if (running)
> - sa->util_sum += scaled_delta_w * scale_cpu;
> + sa->util_sum += delta_w * scale_freq_cpu;
>
> delta -= delta_w;
>
> @@ -2620,25 +2622,23 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
>
> /* Efficiently calculate \sum (1..n_period) 1024*y^i */
> contrib = __compute_runnable_contrib(periods);
> - contrib = cap_scale(contrib, scale_freq);
> if (weight) {
> - sa->load_sum += weight * contrib;
> + sa->load_sum += scaled_weight * contrib;
> if (cfs_rq)
> - cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += weight * contrib;
> + cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += scaled_weight * contrib;
> }
> if (running)
> - sa->util_sum += contrib * scale_cpu;
> + sa->util_sum += contrib * scale_freq_cpu;
> }
>
> /* Remainder of delta accrued against u_0` */
> - scaled_delta = cap_scale(delta, scale_freq);
> if (weight) {
> - sa->load_sum += weight * scaled_delta;
> + sa->load_sum += scaled_weight * delta;
> if (cfs_rq)
> - cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += weight * scaled_delta;
> + cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += scaled_weight * delta;
> }
> if (running)
> - sa->util_sum += scaled_delta * scale_cpu;
> + sa->util_sum += delta * scale_freq_cpu;
>
> sa->period_contrib += delta;
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> --
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists