| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:24:39 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, yuyang.du@...el.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mgalbraith@...e.de,
sgurrappadi@...dia.com, freedom.tan@...iatek.com,
keita.kobayashi.ym@...esas.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/13] sched/fair: Compute task/cpu utilization at
wake-up more correctly
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:40:55AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 04:42:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But unlike that function, it doesn't actually use __update_load_avg().
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Fair question :)
> >
> > We currently exploit the fact that the task utilization is _not_ updated
> > in wake-up balancing to make sure we don't under-estimate the capacity
> > requirements for tasks that have slept for a while. If we update it, we
> > loose the non-decayed 'peak' utilization, but I guess we could just
> > store it somewhere when we do the wake-up decay.
> >
> > I thought there was a better reason when I wrote the patch, but I don't
> > recall right now. I will look into it again and see if we can use
> > __update_load_avg() to do a proper update instead of doing things twice.
>
> AFAICT, we should be able to synchronize the task utilization to the
> previous rq utilization using __update_load_avg() as you suggest. The
> patch below is should work as a replacement without any changes to
> subsequent patches. It doesn't solve the under-estimation issue, but I
> have another patch for that.
And here is a possible solution to the under-estimation issue. The patch
would have to go at the end of this set.
---8<---
>From 5bc918995c6c589b833ba1f189a8b92fa22202ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:30:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Track peak per-entity utilization
When using PELT (per-entity load tracking) utilization to place tasks at
wake-up using the decayed utilization (due to sleep) leads to
under-estimation of true utilization of the task. This could mean
putting the task on a cpu with less available capacity than is actually
needed. This issue can be mitigated by using 'peak' utilization instead
of the decayed utilization for placement decisions, e.g. at task
wake-up.
The 'peak' utilization metric, util_peak, tracks util_avg when the task
is running and retains its previous value while the task is
blocked/waiting on the rq. It is instantly updated to track util_avg
again as soon as the task running again.
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 2 +-
kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 4e0c47af9b05..40e427d1d378 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ struct load_weight {
struct sched_avg {
u64 last_update_time, load_sum;
u32 util_sum, period_contrib;
- unsigned long load_avg, util_avg;
+ unsigned long load_avg, util_avg, util_peak;
};
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 11b250531ed4..8462a3d455ff 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -692,6 +692,7 @@ void init_entity_runnable_average(struct sched_entity *se)
* At this point, util_avg won't be used in select_task_rq_fair anyway
*/
sa->util_avg = 0;
+ sa->util_peak = 0;
sa->util_sum = 0;
/* when this task enqueue'ed, it will contribute to its cfs_rq's load_avg */
}
@@ -744,6 +745,7 @@ void post_init_entity_util_avg(struct sched_entity *se)
} else {
sa->util_avg = cap;
}
+ sa->util_peak = sa->util_avg;
sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
}
@@ -2806,6 +2808,9 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
sa->util_avg = sa->util_sum / LOAD_AVG_MAX;
}
+ if (running || sa->util_avg > sa->util_peak)
+ sa->util_peak = sa->util_avg;
+
return decayed;
}
@@ -5174,7 +5179,7 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
return 1;
}
-static inline int task_util(struct task_struct *p);
+static inline int task_util_peak(struct task_struct *p);
static int cpu_util_wake(int cpu, struct task_struct *p);
static unsigned long capacity_spare_wake(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
@@ -5257,10 +5262,10 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
} while (group = group->next, group != sd->groups);
/* Found a significant amount of spare capacity. */
- if (this_spare > task_util(p) / 2 &&
+ if (this_spare > task_util_peak(p) / 2 &&
imbalance*this_spare > 100*most_spare)
return NULL;
- else if (most_spare > task_util(p) / 2)
+ else if (most_spare > task_util_peak(p) / 2)
return most_spare_sg;
if (!idlest || 100*this_load < imbalance*min_load)
@@ -5423,6 +5428,11 @@ static inline int task_util(struct task_struct *p)
return p->se.avg.util_avg;
}
+static inline int task_util_peak(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->se.avg.util_peak;
+}
+
/*
* cpu_util_wake: Compute cpu utilization with any contributions from
* the waking task p removed.
@@ -5455,7 +5465,7 @@ static int wake_cap(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int prev_cpu)
/* Bring task utilization in sync with prev_cpu */
sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se);
- return min_cap * 1024 < task_util(p) * capacity_margin;
+ return min_cap * 1024 < task_util_peak(p) * capacity_margin;
}
/*
--
1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists