linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load

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: <CAKfTPtC92nVXCH3QX-Qqf5R5gD58pk2=S_OpwiTao5y16g84Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:21:52 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 25 April 2017 at 23:08, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > I have run a quick test with your patches and schbench on my platform.
>> > I haven't been able to reproduce your regression but my platform is
>> > quite different from yours (only 8 cores without SMT)
>> > But most importantly, the parent cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg never
>> > reaches 0 (or almost 0) when it is idle. Instead, it still has a
>> > runnable_load_avg (this is not due to rounding computation) whereas
>> > runnable_load_avg should be 0
>>
>> Heh, let me try that out.  Probably a silly mistake somewhere.
>
> This is from the follow-up patch.  I was confused.  Because we don't
> propagate decays, we still should decay the runnable_load_avg;
> otherwise, we end up accumulating errors in the counter.  I'll drop
> the last patch.

Ok, the runnable_load_avg goes back to 0 when I drop patch 3. But i
see  runnable_load_avg sometimes significantly higher than load_avg
which is normally not possible as load_avg = runnable_load_avg +
sleeping task's load_avg

Then, I just have the opposite behavior on my platform. I see a
increase of latency at p99 with your patches.
My platform is a hikey : 2x4 cores ARM and I have used schbench -m 2
-t 4 -s 10000 -c 15000 -r 30 so I have 1 worker thread per CPU which
is similar to what you are doing on your platform

With v4.11-rc8. I have run 10 times the test and get consistent results
schbench -m 2 -t 4 -s 10000 -c 15000 -r 30
Latency percentiles (usec)
50.0000th: 255
75.0000th: 350
90.0000th: 454
95.0000th: 489
*99.0000th: 539
99.5000th: 585
99.9000th: 10224
min=0, max=13567

With your patches i see an increase of the latency for p99. I run 10
times the test too and half tests show latency increase like below
schbench$ ./schbench -m 2 -t 4 -s 10000 -c 15000 -r 30
Latency percentiles (usec)
50.0000th: 216
75.0000th: 295
90.0000th: 395
95.0000th: 444
*99.0000th: 2034
99.5000th: 5960
99.9000th: 12240
min=0, max=14744

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun