linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

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: <20160212140415.GS6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:04:15 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update
 callbacks

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:23:55PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I agree that using rt_avg is not the best choice to evaluate the
> capacity that is used by RT tasks but it has the advantage of been
> already there. Do you mean that we should use another way to compute
> the capacity that is used by rt tasks to then select the frequency  ?

Nope, RR/FIFO simply do not contain enough information to compute
anything from.

> Or do you mean that we can't do anything else than asking for max
> frequency ?

Yep.

> Trying to set max frequency just before scheduling RT task is not
> really doable on a lot of platform because the sequence that changes
> the frequency can sleep and takes more time than the run time of the
> task.

So what people do today is shoot cpufreq in the head and not use it,
maybe that's the 'right' thing on these platforms.

> At the end, we will have set max frequency once the task has
> finished to run. There is no other solution than increasing the
> min_freq of cpufreq to a level that will ensure enough compute
> capacity for RT task with such high constraints that cpufreq can't
> react.

But you cannot a priori tell how much time RR/FIFO tasks will require,
that's the entire problem with them. We can compute a hysterical
average, but that _will_ mis predict the future and get you
underruns/deadline misses.

> For other RT tasks, we can probably found a way to set a
> frequency that can fit both RT constraints and power consumption.

You cannot, not without adding a lot more information about what these
tasks are doing, and that is not captured in the task model.