linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on task wake-up

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: <20180410172932.GD4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:29:32 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on
 task wake-up

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:36:06PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> +	for_each_freq_domain(fd) {
> +		unsigned long spare_cap, max_spare_cap = 0;
> +		int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1;
> +		unsigned long util;
> +
> +		/* Find the CPU with the max spare cap in the freq. dom. */
> +		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freq_domain_span(fd), sched_domain_span(sd)) {
> +			if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
> +				continue;
> +
> +			if (cpu == prev_cpu)
> +				continue;
> +
> +			util = cpu_util_wake(cpu, p);
> +			cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
> +			if (!util_fits_capacity(util + task_util, cpu_cap))
> +				continue;
> +
> +			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
> +			if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap) {
> +				max_spare_cap = spare_cap;
> +				max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
> +			}
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Evaluate the energy impact of using this CPU. */
> +		if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0) {
> +			cur_energy = compute_energy(p, max_spare_cap_cpu);
> +			if (cur_energy < best_energy) {
> +				best_energy = cur_energy;
> +				best_energy_cpu = max_spare_cap_cpu;
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}

If each CPU has its own frequency domain, then the above loop ends up
being O(n^2), no? Is there really nothing we can do about that? Also, I
feel that warrants a comment warning about this.

Someone, somewhere will try and build a 64+64 cpu system and get
surprised it doesn't work :-)