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]

Message-ID: <CAJWu+oqaWtGNoOcRGevq5KuDUxGAxkjB3SKf=4NnXOgixutxkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:19:35 -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

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Vikram Mulukutla
<markivx@...eaurora.org> wrote:
[..]
>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> So going by Patrick's commit text, the concern was a TOC/TOU
> problem, but since we agree that CFS utilization can't change
> within an rq-locked critical section, the only thing that can
> change is 'max'. So you might be the 8th cpu in line waiting
> for the sg-policy lock, and after you get the lock, the max may
> be outdated.
>
> But come to think of it max changes should be triggering schedutil
> updates and those shouldn't be rate-throttled, so maybe we don't
> need this at all? It's still somewhat future-proof in case there
> is some stat that we read in sugov_get_util that can be updated
> asynchronously. However we can put it in when we need it...

It looks like Juri's patch [1] to split signals already cleaned it up
so we should be all set ;-)

Thanks,

-Joel

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9826201/