linux-kernel - Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes

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: <CAKfTPtC-jdC5PFX6AWkT=tm6BptxC-Ty06Q-rHCxR4-Lk6OYBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:50:57 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, omer.akram@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes

On 19 October 2016 at 17:33, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
> On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> But this test only makes sure that we don't see any ghost contribution
>>> (from non-existing cpus) any more.
>>>
>>> We should study the tg->se[i]->avg.load_avg for the hierarchy of tg's
>>> (with the highest tg having a task enqueued) a little bit more, with and
>>> without your v5 'sched: reflect sched_entity move into task_group's load'.
>>
>> Can you elaborate ?
>
> I try :-)
>
> I thought I will see some different behaviour because of the fact that
> the tg se's are initialized differently [1024 versus 0].

This difference should be noticeable (if noticeable) only during few
hundreds of ms after the creation of the task group until the load_avg
has reached its real value.

>
> But I can't spot any difference. The test case is running a sysbench
> thread affine to cpu1 in tg_root/tg_1/tg_11/tg_111 on tip/sched/core on
> an ARM64 Juno (6 logical cpus).
> The moment the sysbench task is put into tg_111
> tg_111->se[1]->avg.load_avg gets updated to 0 any way because of the
> huge time difference between creating this tg and attaching a task to
> it. So the tg->se[2]->avg.load_avg signals for tg_111, tg_11 and tg_1
> look exactly the same w/o and w/ your patch.
>
> But your patch helps in this (very synthetic) test case as well. W/o
> your patch I see remaining tg->load_avg for tg_1 and tg_11 after the
> test case has finished because the tg's were exclusively used on cpu1.
>
> # cat /proc/sched_debug
>
>  cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1
>    .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
>    .tg_load_avg                   : 5120 (5 (unused cpus) * 1024 * 1)
>  cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1/tg_11/tg_111
>    .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
>    .tg_load_avg                   : 0
>  cfs_rq[1]:/tg_1/tg_11
>    .tg_load_avg_contrib           : 0
>    .tg_load_avg                   : 5120
>
> With your patch applied all the .tg_load_avg are 0.