linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

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: <20170714160648.tg2u6eo2id6gmnjz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:06:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        len.brown@...el.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        arjan@...ux.intel.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 08:53:56AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > -	if (cpuidle_not_available(drv, dev)) {
> > > +	if (cpuidle_not_available(drv, dev) || this_is_a_fast_idle) {
> > > 		default_idle_call();
> > > 		goto exit_idle;
> > > 	}
> > 
> > No, that's wrong. We want to fix the normal C state selection process to
> > pick the right C state.
> > 
> > The fast-idle criteria could cut off a whole bunch of available C
> > states. We need to understand why our current C state pick is wrong and
> > amend the algorithm to do better. Not just bolt something on the side.
> 
> Fast idle uses the same predictor as the current C state governor.
> 
> The only difference is that it uses a different threshold for C1.
> Likely that's the cause. If it was using the same threshold the
> decision would be the same.

Right, so its selecting C1 for longer. That in turn means we could now
never select C2; because the fast-idle threshold is longer than our C2
time.

Which I feel is wrong; because if we're getting C1 wrong, what says
we're then getting the rest right.

> The thresholds are coming either from the tables in intel idle,
> or from ACPI (let's assume the first)
> 
> That means either: the intel idle C1 threshold on the system Aubrey
> tested on is too high, or the fast idle threshold is too low.

Or our predictor is doing it wrong. It could be its over-estimating idle
duration. For example, suppose we have an idle distribution of:

	40% < C1
	60% > C2

And we end up selecting C2. Even though in many of our sleeps we really
wanted C1.

And as said; Daniel has been working on a better predictor -- now he's
probably not used it on the network workload you're looking at, so that
might be something to consider.