linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection

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: <20170523202321.3bygt6ydyiy5xief@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 22:23:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
        claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
        bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
        joelaf@...gle.com, andresoportus@...gle.com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP
 selection

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:43AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:

> A point that is still very much up for discussion (more that the others :) is
> how we implement frequency/cpu scaling. SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks only need
> grub_reclaim(), as the function already scales their reservation runtime
> considering other reservations and maximum bandwidth a CPU has to offer.
> However, for normal !RECLAIM tasks multiple things can be implemented which
> seem to make sense:
> 
>  - don't scale at all: normal tasks will only get a % of CPU _time_ as granted
>    by AC
>  - go to max as soon as a normal task in enqueued: this because dimensioning of
>    parameters is usually done at max OPP/biggest CPU and normal task assume
>    that this is always the condition when they run
>  - scale runtime acconding to current frequency and max CPU capacity: this is
>    what this set is currently implementing
> 
> Opinions?


So I'm terribly confused...

By using the active bandwidth to select frequency we effectively
reduce idle time (to 0 if we had infinite granular frequency steps and
no margins).

So !RECLAIM works as expected. They get the time they reserved, since
that was taken into account by active bandwidth.

And RECLAIM works, since that only promises to (re)distribute idle time,
and if there is none that is an easy task.


Where is the problem?