linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Upload nohz full CPU load on task enqueue/dequeue

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: <20160119170317.GC5317@lerouge>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:03:19 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Upload nohz full CPU load on task
 enqueue/dequeue

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:17:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The full nohz CPU load is currently accounted on tick restart only.
> > But there are a few issues with this model:
> > 
> > _ On tick restart, if cpu_load[0] doesn't contain the load of the actual
> >   tickless load that just ran, we are going to account a wrong value.
> >   And it is very likely to be so given that cpu_load[0] doesn't have
> >   an opportunity to be updated between tick stop and tick restart.
> > 
> > _ If the runqueue had updates that didn't trigger a tick restart, we
> >   are going to miss those CPU load changes.
> > 
> > A solution to fix this is to update the CPU load everytime we enqueue
> > or dequeue a task in the fair runqueue and more than a jiffy occured
> > since the last update.
> 
> Would not a much better solution be to do this remotely instead of from
> one of the hottest functions in the scheduler?

The problem with doing this remotely is that we can miss past cpu loads if
there was several enqueue/dequeue operations happening while tickless.

For example if CPU 1 runs sched entity A with a load of 5 (purely theoric)
for 5 sec then it sleeps, entity B runs with a load of 1 and then CPU 2 updates
the load of CPU 1 remotely. cpu_load[0] will be accurate because it's the current
load of CPU 1 (which is the load of entity B), but the other indexes won't take
the decayed load of entity A into account.

Now we can indeed remove the queue time local update and only rely on remote
updates when needed if we can live with a light precision on target_load() and
source_load().