linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:11:25 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggeman <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:40:23AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> The PELT signal (sa->load_avg and sa->util_avg) are not updated if the
>> amount accumulated during a single update doesn't cross a period
>> boundary.
>
>> This is fine in cases where the amount accrued is much smaller than
>> the size of a single PELT window (1ms) however if the amount accrued
>> is high then the relative error (calculated against what the actual
>> signal would be had we updated the averages) can be quite high - as
>> much 3-6% in my testing.
>
> The max accumulate we can have and not cross a boundary is 1023*1024 ns.
> At which point we get a divisor of LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024 + 1023.
>
> So for util_sum we'd have a increase of 1023*1024/(47742-1) = ~22. Which
> on the total signal for util (1024) is ~2.1%
>
> Where does the 3-6% come from?
>
>> Inorder to fix this, this patch does the average update by also
>> checking how much time has elapsed since the last update and update
>> the averages if it has been long enough (as a threshold I chose
>> 128us).
>
> This of course does the divisions more often; anything on performance
> impact?

I ran hackbench and as such I don't see any degradation in performance.

# while [ 1 ]; do hackbench 5 thread 500; done
Running with 5*40 (== 200) tasks.

without:
Time: 0.742
Time: 0.770
Time: 0.857
Time: 0.809
Time: 0.721
Time: 0.725
Time: 0.717
Time: 0.699

with:
Time: 0.787
Time: 0.816
Time: 0.744
Time: 0.832
Time: 0.798
Time: 0.785
Time: 0.714
Time: 0.721

If there's any other benchmark or anything different in this test
you'd like me to run, let me know, thanks.

Regards,
Joel