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: <20180622153016.GA29031@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:30:17 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] cpufreq/schedutil: use rt utilization tracking

On Friday 22 Jun 2018 at 17:22:58 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:37:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > That is true.. So we could limit the scaling to the case where there is
> > no idle time, something like:
> > 
> > 	util = sg_cpu->util_cfs;
> > 
> > 	cap_cfs = (1024 - (sg_cpu->util_rt + ...));
> > 	if (util == cap_cfs)
> > 		util = sg_cpu->max;
> > 
> 
> OK, it appears this is more or less what the patches do. And I think
> there's a small risk/hole with this where util ~= cap_cfs but very close
> due to some unaccounted time.

So Vincent suggested at some point to add a margin to avoid that issue
IIRC. FWIW, this is what the overutilized flag of EAS does. It basically
says, if there isn't enough idle time in the system (cfs_util is too close
to cap_cfs), don't bother looking at the util signals because they'll be
kinda wrong.

So what about something like, go to max freq if overutilized ? Or
something similar on a per cpufreq policy basis ?

Thanks,
Quentin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ