linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] cpufreq: schedutil: update CFS util only if used

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]

Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:14:48 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] cpufreq: schedutil: update CFS util only if used

Hi Vikram,

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Vikram Mulukutla
<markivx@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 2017-07-04 10:34, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>>
>> Currently the utilization of the FAIR class is collected before locking
>> the policy. Although that should not be a big issue for most cases, we
>> also don't really know how much latency there can be between the
>> utilization reading and its usage.
>>
>> Let's get the FAIR utilization right before its usage to be better in
>> sync with the current status of a CPU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index 98704d8..df433f1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -308,10 +308,9 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct
>> update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>>         if (unlikely(current == sg_policy->thread))
>>                 return;
>>
>> -       sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
>> -
>>         raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>>
>> +       sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
>>         sg_cpu->util = util;
>>         sg_cpu->max = max;
>
>
> Given that the utilization update hooks are called with the per-cpu rq lock
> held (for all classes), I don't think PELT utilization can change throughout
> the lifetime of the cpufreq_update_{util,this_cpu} call? Even with Viresh's
> remote cpu callback series we'd still have to hold the rq lock across
> cpufreq_update_util..  what can change today is 'max'
> (arch_scale_cpu_capacity) when a cpufreq policy is shared, so the patch is
> still needed for that reason I think?
>

I didn't follow, Could you elaborate more why you think the patch
helps with the case where max changes while the per-cpu rq lock held?

thanks,

-Joel