linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:28:04 -0800
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:17:02 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> > > > Two sysctl knobs are given to the userspace for selecting the
> > > > percentage of idle time as well as the forced idle duration for
> > > > each idle period injected.    
> > > 
> > > What's the purpose of these knobs? Just testing, or will some
> > > user-space daemon set them dynamically?
> > >   
> > yes, it is to be used by userspace daemon such as thermal daemon.
> > Though there are interests from in kernel thermal governor but that
> > is another story.  
> 
> Yeah, so let me make this very clear: for a kernel scheduling feature
> to be self-sufficient is not 'another story', but a must-have aspect
> for this feature to become upstream acceptable.
> 
> We don't add scheduler features that rely on pushing 'policy' to
> user-space. That's poor design with many disadvantages. This feature
> should offer a reasonable and automatic in-kernel default behavior
> with numbers that prove that it works.
> 
Sorry about the late response, have been sick all this time.

So my intention here are two folds and two steps.

1. for system under thermal/power limit but still want to operate at
optimal energy efficiency point

2. synchronize idle time for better energy efficiency (runtime identify
suitable workload)

This patchset is intended for #1. Lay ground work for #2.

The knobs in #1 can be used by in kernel thermal-aware scheduling as
some early discussion pointed out. Thus not pushing policy to userspace.

For #2, my plan is to have a PM QoS like knob with sensible default to
specify scheduler latency tolerance w.r.t. idle synchronization.

Similar to timer slack (where default 5ms slack is used), we can give a
default tolerance in the forms of two parameters:
- forced_idle_duration (default 5ms)
- forced_to_natural_idle_ratio (default 50%)

e.g. when playing a online game with 40% natural idle time, idle
injection code will try to 20% synchronized idle time.

> Keeping an essential part of the feature in user-space earns a NAK
> from me.
I agree this should be self contained. My intension is to have the
essential part used in kernel by thermal aware scheduling or PM QoS
with clear intuitive mode of operation.
--
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/