linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7 v3] sched: propagate load during synchronous attach/detach

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: <CAKfTPtC0dpLYsfn7Li__nr3MX45DX2fBL=ZTDqSuDCYKe2XS_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:31:24 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7 v3] sched: propagate load during synchronous attach/detach

On 15 September 2016 at 15:11, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
> On 12/09/16 08:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> When a task moves from/to a cfs_rq, we set a flag which is then used to
>> propagate the change at parent level (sched_entity and cfs_rq) during
>> next update. If the cfs_rq is throttled, the flag will stay pending until
>> the cfs_rw is unthrottled.
>>
>> For propagating the utilization, we copy the utilization of child cfs_rq to
>
> s/child/group ?
>
>> the sched_entity.
>>
>> For propagating the load, we have to take into account the load of the
>> whole task group in order to evaluate the load of the sched_entity.
>> Similarly to what was done before the rewrite of PELT, we add a correction
>> factor in case the task group's load is less than its share so it will
>> contribute the same load of a task of equal weight.
>
> What about cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg?

sched_entity's load is updated before being enqueued so the up to date
value will be added to cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg... Unless se is
already enqueued ... so cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg should also be
updated is se is already on_rq. I'm going to add this case

Thanks for pointing this case

>
> [...]
>
>> +/* Take into account change of load of a child task group */
>> +static inline void
>> +update_tg_cfs_load(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>> +{
>> +     struct cfs_rq *gcfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
>> +     long delta, load = gcfs_rq->avg.load_avg;
>> +
>> +     /* If the load of group cfs_rq is null, the load of the
>> +      * sched_entity will also be null so we can skip the formula
>> +      */
>> +     if (load) {
>> +             long tg_load;
>> +
>> +             /* Get tg's load and ensure tg_load > 0 */
>> +             tg_load = atomic_long_read(&gcfs_rq->tg->load_avg) + 1;
>> +
>> +             /* Ensure tg_load >= load and updated with current load*/
>> +             tg_load -= gcfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib;
>> +             tg_load += load;
>> +
>> +             /* scale gcfs_rq's load into tg's shares*/
>> +             load *= scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares);
>> +             load /= tg_load;
>> +
>> +             /*
>> +              * we need to compute a correction term in the case that the
>> +              * task group is consuming <1 cpu so that we would contribute
>> +              * the same load as a task of equal weight.
>
> Wasn't 'consuming <1' related to 'NICE_0_LOAD' and not
> scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares) before the rewrite of PELT (v4.2,
> __update_group_entity_contrib())?

Yes before the rewrite, the condition (tg->runnable_avg < NICE_0_LOAD) was used.

I have used the following examples to choose the condition:

A task group with only one always running task TA with a weight equals
to tg->shares, will have a tg's load (cfs_rq->tg->load_avg) equals to
TA's weight == scale_load_down(tg->shares): The load of the CPU on
which the task runs, will be scale_load_down(task's weight) ==
scale_load_down(tg->shares) and the load of others CPUs will be null.
In this case, all shares will be given to cfs_rq CFS1 on which TA runs
and the load of the sched_entity SB that represents CFS1 at parent
level will be scale_load_down(SB's weight) =
scale_load_down(tg->shares).

If the TA is not an always running task, its load will be less than
its weight and less than scale_load_down(tg->shares) and as a result
tg->load_avg will be less than scale_load_down(tg->shares).
Nevertheless, the weight of SB is still scale_load_down(tg->shares)
and its load should be the same as TA. But the 1st part of the
calculation gives a load of scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares)
because tg_load == gcfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib == load. So if tg_load
< scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares), we have to correct the load
that we set to SEB

>
>> +             */
>> +             if (tg_load < scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares)) {
>> +                     load *= tg_load;
>> +                     load /= scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->tg->shares);
>> +             }
>> +     }
>
> [...]