| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170320035745.GC25659@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:27:45 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Force max frequency on busy
CPUs
On 19-03-17, 14:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> The PELT metric used by the schedutil governor underestimates the
> CPU utilization in some cases. The reason for that may be time spent
> in interrupt handlers and similar which is not accounted for by PELT.
>
> That can be easily demonstrated by running kernel compilation on
> a Sandy Bridge Intel processor, running turbostat in parallel with
> it and looking at the values written to the MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL
> register. Namely, the expected result would be that when all CPUs
> were 100% busy, all of them would be requested to run in the maximum
> P-state, but observation shows that this clearly isn't the case.
> The CPUs run in the maximum P-state for a while and then are
> requested to run slower and go back to the maximum P-state after
> a while again. That causes the actual frequency of the processor to
> visibly oscillate below the sustainable maximum in a jittery fashion
> which clearly is not desirable.
>
> To work around this issue use the observation that, from the
> schedutil governor's perspective, CPUs that are never idle should
> always run at the maximum frequency and make that happen.
>
> To that end, add a counter of idle calls to struct sugov_cpu and
> modify cpuidle_idle_call() to increment that counter every time it
> is about to put the given CPU into an idle state. Next, make the
> schedutil governor look at that counter for the current CPU every
> time before it is about to start heavy computations. If the counter
> has not changed for over SUGOV_BUSY_THRESHOLD time (equal to 50 ms),
> the CPU has not been idle for at least that long and the governor
> will choose the maximum frequency for it without looking at the PELT
> metric at all.
Looks like we are fixing a PELT problem with a schedutil Hack :)
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched/cpufreq.h | 6 ++++++
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/sched/idle.c | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include "sched.h"
>
> #define SUGOV_KTHREAD_PRIORITY 50
> +#define SUGOV_BUSY_THRESHOLD (50 * NSEC_PER_MSEC)
>
> struct sugov_tunables {
> struct gov_attr_set attr_set;
> @@ -55,6 +56,9 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
>
> unsigned long iowait_boost;
> unsigned long iowait_boost_max;
> + unsigned long idle_calls;
> + unsigned long saved_idle_calls;
> + u64 busy_start;
> u64 last_update;
>
> /* The fields below are only needed when sharing a policy. */
> @@ -192,6 +196,34 @@ static void sugov_iowait_boost(struct su
> sg_cpu->iowait_boost >>= 1;
> }
>
> +void cpufreq_schedutil_idle_call(void)
> +{
> + struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = this_cpu_ptr(&sugov_cpu);
> +
> + sg_cpu->idle_calls++;
> +}
> +
> +static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> +{
> + if (sg_cpu->idle_calls != sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls) {
> + sg_cpu->busy_start = 0;
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (!sg_cpu->busy_start) {
> + sg_cpu->busy_start = sg_cpu->last_update;
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return sg_cpu->last_update - sg_cpu->busy_start > SUGOV_BUSY_THRESHOLD;
> +}
> +
> +static void sugov_save_idle_calls(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> +{
> + if (!sg_cpu->busy_start)
> + sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls = sg_cpu->idle_calls;
Why aren't we doing this in sugov_cpu_is_busy() itself ? And isn't it possible
for idle_calls to get incremented by this time?
> +}
> +
> static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> unsigned int flags)
> {
> @@ -207,7 +239,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct u
> if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> return;
>
> - if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
> + if ((flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) || sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu)) {
> next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> } else {
> sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
> @@ -215,6 +247,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct u
> next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
> }
> sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> + sugov_save_idle_calls(sg_cpu);
> }
>
> static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> @@ -278,12 +311,13 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct u
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
>
> if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
> - if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL)
> + if ((flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) || sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu))
What about others CPUs in this policy?
> next_f = sg_policy->policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> else
> next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu);
>
> sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> + sugov_save_idle_calls(sg_cpu);
> }
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists