linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 5/5] sched/{core,cpufreq_schedutil}: add capacity clamping for RT/DL tasks

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: <CAJWu+opgLoa3EGdhQKXSi+dkQjXtc62tKmTL0krXxpqJp+PjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:59:51 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel.opensrc@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 5/5] sched/{core,cpufreq_schedutil}: add capacity
 clamping for RT/DL tasks

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi
<patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
>> <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
>> > Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE.
>> > Such a mandatory policy can be made more tunable from userspace thus
>> > allowing for example to define a reasonable max capacity (i.e.
>> > frequency) which is required for the execution of a specific RT/DL
>> > workload. This will contribute to make the RT class more "friendly" for
>> > power/energy sensible applications.
>> >
>> > This patch extends the usage of capacity_{min,max} to the RT/DL classes.
>> > Whenever a task in these classes is RUNNABLE, the capacity required is
>> > defined by the constraints of the control group that task belongs to.
>> >
>>
>> We briefly discussed this at Linaro Connect that this works well for
>> sporadic RT tasks that run briefly and then sleep for long periods of
>> time - so certainly this patch is good, but its only a partial
>> solution to the problem of frequent and short-sleepers and something
>> is required to keep the boost active for short non-RUNNABLE as well.
>> The behavior with many periodic RT tasks is that they will sleep for
>> short intervals and run for short intervals periodically. In this case
>> removing the clamp (or the boost as in schedtune v2) on a dequeue will
>> essentially mean during a narrow window cpufreq can drop the frequency
>> and only to make it go back up again.
>>
>> Currently for schedtune v2, I am working on prototyping something like
>> the following for Android:
>> - if RT task is enqueue, introduce the boost.
>> - When task is dequeued, start a timer for a  "minimum deboost delay
>> time" before taking out the boost.
>> - If task is enqueued again before the timer fires, then cancel the timer.
>>
>> I don't think any "fix" to this particular issue should be to the
>> schedutil governor and should be sorted before going to cpufreq itself
>> (that is before making the request). What do you think about this?
>
> My short observations are:
>
> 1) for certain RT tasks, which have a quite "predictable" activation
>    pattern, we should definitively try to use DEADLINE... which will
>    factor out all "boosting potential races" since the bandwidth
>    requirements are well defined at task description time.

I don't immediately see how deadline can fix this, when a task is
dequeued after end of its current runtime, its bandwidth will be
subtracted from the active running bandwidth. This is what drives the
DL part of the capacity request. In this case, we run into the same
issue as with the boost-removal on dequeue. Isn't it?

> 4) Previous point is about "separation of concerns", thus IMHO any
>    policy defining how to consume the CPU utilization signal
>    (whether it is boosted or not) should be responsibility of
>    schedutil, which eventually does not exclude useful input from the
>    scheduler.
>
> 5) I understand the usefulness of a scale down threshold for schedutil
>    to reduce the current OPP, while I don't get the point for a scale
>    up threshold. If the system is demanding more capacity and there
>    are not HW constrains (e.g. pending changes) then we should go up
>    as soon as possible.
>
> Finally, I think we can improve quite a lot the boosting issues you
> are having with RT tasks by better refining the schedutil thresholds
> implementation.
>
> We already have some patches pending for review:
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/385
> which fixes some schedutil issue and we will follow up with others
> trying to improve the rate-limiting to not compromise responsiveness.

I agree we can try to explore fixing schedutil to do the right thing.

J.