linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags

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:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:28:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, tkjos@...roid.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization
 update flags

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55:46PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 20-Dec 09:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Didn't juri have patches to make DL do something sane? But yes, I think
> > those flags are part of the problem.
> 
> He recently reposted them here:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171204102325.5110-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com

Yeah, just found them and actually munged them into my queue; did all
the modifications you suggested too. Lets see if it comes apart.

> > > - From the utilization handler, we check runqueues of all three sched
> > >   classes to see if they have some work pending (this can be done
> > >   smartly by checking only RT first and skipping other checks if RT
> > >   has some work).
> > 
> > No that's wrong. DL should provide a minimum required based on existing
> > reservations, we can add the expected CFS average on top and request
> > that.
> > 
> > And for RT all we need to know is if current is of that class, otherwise
> > we don't care.
> 
> So, this:
> 
>    https://marc.info/?i=20171130114723.29210-3-patrick.bellasi%40arm.com

Right, I was actually looking for those patches, but I'm searching
backwards and hit upon Juri's patches first.

> was actually going in this direction, although still working on top of
> flags to not change the existing interface too much.
> 
> IMO, the advantage of flags is that they are a sort-of "pro-active"
> approach, where the scheduler notify sensible events to schedutil.
> But keep adding flags seems to overkilling to me too.
> 
> If we remove flags then we have to query the scheduler classes "on
> demand"... but, as Peter suggests, once we have DL bits Juri posted,
> the only issue if to know if an RT task is running.
> This the patch above can be just good enough, with no flags at all and
> with just a check for current being RT (or DL for the time being).

Well, we still need flags for crap like IO-WAIT IIRC. That's sugov
internal state and not something the scheduler actually already knows.

But let me continue searching for patches..

Ooh, I found patches from Brendan... should be very close to yours
though, going by that msgid you posted on Nov 30th and I'm now on Dec
1st, soooon... :-)