linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: add support to tune PELT ramp/decay timings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180412191318.GA7129@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:13:18 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     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>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: add support to tune PELT ramp/decay timings

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> The PELT half-life is the time [ms] required by the PELT signal to build
> up a 50% load/utilization, starting from zero. This time is currently
> hardcoded to be 32ms, a value which seems to make sense for most of the
> workloads.
> 
> However, 32ms has been verified to be too long for certain classes of
> workloads. For example, in the mobile space many tasks affecting the
> user-experience run with a 16ms or 8ms cadence, since they need to match
> the common 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rate of the graphics pipeline.
> This contributed so fare to the idea that "PELT is too slow" to properly
> track the utilization of interactive mobile workloads, especially
> compared to alternative load tracking solutions which provides a
> better representation of tasks demand in the range of 10-20ms.

Initially the 32 was chosen to more or less correspond to the effective
scheduling period (sysctl_sched_latency based). The thinking was that if
you pick a PELT window shorter than the period, the result becomes
unstable due to not all tasks getting an equal go at things.

(of course, stuffing enough tasks on a rq will break this, but at that
point you have worse problems to deal with)

Should we retain this? Esp. with the lower end (8ms) I worry we'll see
more of those effects.


> Fortunately, since the integration of the utilization estimation
> support in mainline kernel:
> 
>    commit 7f65ea42eb00 ("sched/fair: Add util_est on top of PELT")
> 
> a fast decay time is no longer an issue for tasks utilization estimation.
> Although estimated utilization does not slow down the decay of blocked
> utilization on idle CPUs, for mobile workloads this seems not to be a
> major concern compared to the benefits in interactivity responsiveness.

By picking a smaller PELT window, the util_est window shrinks
correspondingly; is that intentional or do we want to modify
UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT to negate the PELT window changes?