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: <CAKfTPtC7MLeYT6nNKPG777fYgha6wLpeLxHx2H175cg0=_FRDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:58:23 +0100
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 1 March 2016 at 14:58, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> Another point to take into account is that the RT tasks will "steal"
>> the compute capacity that has been requested by the cfs tasks.
>>
>> Let takes the example of a CPU with 3 OPP on which run 2 rt tasks A
>> and B and 1 cfs task C.
>
>> Let assume that the real time constraint of RT task A is too agressive
>> for the lowest OPP0 and that the change of the frequency of the core
>> is too slow compare to this constraint but the real time constraint of
>> RT task B can be handle whatever the OPP. System don't have other
>> choice than setting the cpufreq min freq to OPP1 to be sure that
>> constraint of task A will be covered at anytime.
>
>> Then, we still have 2
>> possible OPPs. The CFS task asks for compute capacity that fits in
>> OPP1 but a part of this capacity will be stolen by RT tasks. If we
>> monitor the load of RT tasks and request capacity for these RT tasks
>> according to their current utilization, we can decide to switch to
>> highest OPP2 to ensure that task C will have enough remaining
>> capacity. A lot of embedded platform faces such kind of use cases
>
> Still doesn't make sense. How would you know the constraint of RT task
> A, and that it cannot be satisfied by OPP0 ? The only information you
> have in the task model is a static priority.

The kernel doesn't have this information so that's why the sysfs
cpufreq/scaling_min_freq has to be used to prevent the kernel (and
cpufreq in particular) to use OPP0.
>From a kernel/sched/cpufreq pov, we assume that all OPPs above
cpufreq/scaling_min can be used with RT tasks of the system. And
performance governor is used if only highest OPP can be used.

>
> The only possible choice the kernel has at this point is max OPP. It
> doesn't have enough (_any_) information about worst case execution of
> that task.
>