linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 09/10] sched: deadline: use deadline bandwidth in scale_rt

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: <20151214160759.GD16007@e106622-lin>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:07:59 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Subject: Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 09/10] sched: deadline: use deadline bandwidth in
 scale_rt_capacity

On 14/12/15 16:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 December 2015 at 16:17, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:19:30PM -0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
> >> From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >> index 8b0a15e..9d9eb50 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >> @@ -43,6 +43,24 @@ static inline int on_dl_rq(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> >>       return !RB_EMPTY_NODE(&dl_se->rb_node);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static void add_average_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
> >> +{
> >> +     u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> >> +
> >> +     dl_rq->avg_bw += se_bw;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void clear_average_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
> >> +{
> >> +     u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> >> +
> >> +     dl_rq->avg_bw -= se_bw;
> >> +     if (dl_rq->avg_bw < 0) {
> >> +             WARN_ON(1);
> >> +             dl_rq->avg_bw = 0;
> >> +     }
> >> +}
> >
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 4c49f76..ce05f61 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -6203,6 +6203,14 @@ static unsigned long scale_rt_capacity(int cpu)
> >>
> >>       used = div_u64(avg, total);
> >>
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * deadline bandwidth is defined at system level so we must
> >> +      * weight this bandwidth with the max capacity of the system.
> >> +      * As a reminder, avg_bw is 20bits width and
> >> +      * scale_cpu_capacity is 10 bits width
> >> +      */
> >> +     used += div_u64(rq->dl.avg_bw, arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu));
> >> +
> >>       if (likely(used < SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE))
> >>               return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE - used;
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> index 08858d1..e44c6be 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> @@ -519,6 +519,8 @@ struct dl_rq {
> >>  #else
> >>       struct dl_bw dl_bw;
> >>  #endif
> >> +     /* This is the "average utilization" for this runqueue */
> >> +     s64 avg_bw;
> >>  };
> >
> > So I don't think this is right. AFAICT this projects the WCET as the
> > amount of time actually used by DL. This will, under many circumstances,
> > vastly overestimate the amount of time actually spend on it. Therefore
> > unduly pessimisme the fair capacity of this CPU.
> 
> I agree that if the WCET is far from reality, we will underestimate
> available capacity for CFS. Have you got some use case in mind which
> overestimates the WCET ?

I guess simply the fact that one task can be admitted to the system, but
then in practice sleep, waiting from some event to happen.

> If we can't rely on this parameters to evaluate the amount of capacity
> used by deadline scheduler on a core, this will imply that we can't
> also use it for requesting capacity to cpufreq and we should fallback
> on a monitoring mechanism which reacts to a change instead of
> anticipating it.
> 

There is at least one way in the middle: use utilization of active
servers (as I think Luca was already mentioning). This solution should
remove some of the pessimism, but still be safe for our needs. I should
be able to play with this alternative in the (hopefully) near future.

Thanks,

- Juri
--
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/