linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates

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: <20171222125048.GE30968@e110439-lin>
Date:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:50:48 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates

On 22-Dec 13:43, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 22/12/17 12:38, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 22-Dec 13:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:07:37PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > > I was thinking that since dl is a 'global' scheduler the reservation
> > > > > would be too and thus the freq just needs a single CPU to be observed;
> > > > 
> > > > AFAIU global is only the admission control (which is something worth a
> > > > thread by itself...) while the dl_se->dl_bw are aggregated into the
> > > > dl_rq->running_bw, which ultimately represents the DL bandwidth
> > > > required for just a CPU.
> > > 
> > > Oh urgh yes, forgot that.. then the dl freq stuff isn't strictly correct
> > > I think. But yes, that's another thread.
> > 
> > Mmm... maybe I don't get your point... I was referring to the global
> > admission control of DL. If you have for example 3 60% DL tasks on a
> > 2CPU system, AFAIU the CBS will allow the tasks in the system (since
> > the overall utilization is 180 < 200 * 0.95) although that workload is
> > not necessarily schedule (for example if the tasks wakeups at the
> > same time one of them will miss its deadline).
> > 
> > But, yeah... maybe I'm completely wrong or, in any case, it's for a
> > different thread...
> > 
> > > > > but I suppose there's nothing stopping anybody from splitting a clock
> > > > > domain down the middle scheduling wise. So yes, good point.
> > > > 
> > > > That makes sense... moreover, using the global utilization, we would
> > > > end up asking for capacities which cannot be provided by a single CPU.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but that _should_ not be a problem if you clock them all high
> > > enough. But this gets to be complicated real fast I think.
> > 
> > IMO the current solution with Juri's patches is working as expected:
> > we know how many DL tasks are runnable on a CPU and we properly
> > account for their utilization.
> > 
> > The only "issue/limitation" is (eventually) the case described above.
> > Dunno if we can enqueue 2 60% DL tasks on the same CPU... in that case
> > we will ask for 120% Utilization?
> 
> In general it depends on the other parameters, deadline and period.

Right, but what about the case dealdine==period, with 60% utilization?
AFAIU, 3 DL tasks with same parameters like above will be accepted on
a 2 CPU system, isn't it?

And thus, in that case, we can end up with a 120% utlization request
from DL for a single CPU... but, considering it's lunch o'clock,
I'm likely missing something...

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi