linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

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: <CAKfTPtANR173Hr1K4TOR1DbD6N6qty8V0eTgbKmVmfQUxkJ0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:16:20 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

On 13 April 2017 at 15:39, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:52:21AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> > Secondly, what's up with the util_sum < LOAD_AVG_MAX * 1000 thing?
>>
>> The lost idle time makes sense only if the task can also be "idle"
>> when running at max capacity. When util_sum reaches the
>> LOAD_AVG_MAX*SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE value, all tasks are considered to
>> be the same as we can't make any difference between a task running
>> 400ms or a task running 400sec. It means that these tasks are "always
>> running" tasks even at max capacity. In this case, there is no lost
>> idle time as they always run and tracking and adding back the lost
>> idle time because we run at lower capacity doesn't make sense anymore
>> so we discard it.
>
> Right, this is the point we reached yesterday with the too low F. At
> that point you cannot know and we assuming u=1, F<1 -> u=1, F=1, which
> is a sensible assumption.
>
>> Then an always running task can have a util_sum that is less than the
>> max value because of the rounding (util_avg varies between
>> [1006..1023]), so I use LOAD_AVG_MAX*1000 instead of LOAD_AVG_MAX*1024
>
> OK, so the reason util_avg varies is because we compute it wrong. And I
> think we can easily fix that once we pull out all the factors (which
> would mean your patch and the pulling out of weight patch which still
> needs to be finished).

That would be great to remove this unwanted variation.

>
> But you're comparing against util_sum here, that behaves slightly
> different. I think you want 'util_sum >= 1024 * (LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024)'
> instead.

yes, the variation happens on the util_sum