linux-kernel - Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with pcc-cpufreq

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: <CAJZ5v0gG5XNmpR_0U+6EOFHPeVz+EhunLoQ0-sXDCBg8QL3mQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:03:41 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with pcc-cpufreq

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your report!
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've recently noticed that commit 554c8aa8ecad ("sched: idle: Select
>> idle state before stopping the tick") causes severe performance drop
>> for systems using pcc-cpufreq driver. Depending on the number of CPUs
>> the system might be almost unusable. The OS jitter for 4.17.y and
>> 4.18.-rcx kernels is off the charts, you can even spot it with top
>> command (issued when the system is supposedly idle), e.g.
>>
>>  top - 14:44:24 up 2 min,  1 user,  load average: 90.11, 38.20, 14.38
>>  Tasks: 1199 total, 109 running, 541 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
>>  %Cpu(s):  1.2 us, 58.7 sy,  0.0 ni, 39.3 id,  0.6 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3 si,  0.0 st
>>  KiB Mem:  13137064+total,  1192168 used, 13017848+free,     2340 buffers
>>  KiB Swap:  2104316 total,        0 used,  2104316 free.   522296 cached Mem
>>
>>    PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S    %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
>>   3373 root      20   0  982024  49916  36120 R  96.691 0.038   0:19.54 kubelet
>>     67 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  78.676 0.000   0:49.36 kworker/9:0
>>     25 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  78.125 0.000   0:49.67 kworker/2:0
>>    182 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  75.735 0.000   1:18.17 kworker/28:0
>>     43 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  75.000 0.000   0:11.56 kworker/5:0
>>    103 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  74.449 0.000   0:46.83 kworker/15:0
>>    334 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  72.978 0.000   1:06.88 kworker/53:0
>>    789 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  69.853 0.000   1:29.50 kworker/38:1
>>    418 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  69.301 0.000   0:41.33 kworker/67:0
>>    779 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.934 0.000   1:33.60 kworker/27:1
>>    773 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.566 0.000   1:37.91 kworker/22:1
>>    762 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  68.015 0.000   1:41.01 kworker/11:1
>>    769 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  67.647 0.000   1:37.65 kworker/18:1
>>    805 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  67.096 0.000   1:30.96 kworker/54:1
>>    840 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.912 0.000   1:23.82 kworker/89:1
>>    812 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.728 0.000   1:31.89 kworker/59:1
>>    847 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.360 0.000   1:28.40 kworker/96:1
>>    763 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:42.57 kworker/12:1
>>    772 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:12.58 kworker/21:1
>>    821 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  66.176 0.000   1:29.62 kworker/69:1
>>    923 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.809 0.000   1:44.32 kworker/3:18
>>   1284 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.809 0.000   1:23.50 kworker/101:2
>>     61 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.625 0.000   1:29.37 kworker/8:0
>>   3531 root      20   0   24384   3768   2356 R  65.625 0.003   0:08.91 top
>>    771 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  65.074 0.000   1:37.90 kworker/20:1
>>    767 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.706 0.000   1:38.01 kworker/16:1
>>    764 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.522 0.000   1:40.28 kworker/13:1
>>    765 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.154 0.000   1:40.13 kworker/14:1
>>
>> When I apply below patch (trying to revert essential parts of commit
>> 554c8aa8ecad) behaviour seems back to normal.
>
> Well, that basically defeats the purpose of the change in commit
> 554c8aa8ecad, so it's not what I'd like to do to fix this problem.
>
> Also it would be good to understand what actually happens.
>
>> I know that pcc-cpufreq driver is not "state-of-the-art" when it comes
>> to cpufreq drivers and you better not use it.
>
> That's exactly right.
>
>> But I wonder whether commit 554c8aa8ecad ("sched: idle: Select idle state before
>> stopping the tick") introduced bad behaviour for other cases as well.
>
> It has been tested quite extensively in that respect, although
> admittedly not with the pcc-cpufreq driver.
>
> Nothing bad related to it has been has been reported so far, FWIW.
>
>> I'll send some performance results to illustrate the issue asap. I've
>> also tried to modify pcc-cpufreq to reduce the amount of frequency
>> changes triggered by this driver but this does not help for kernels
>> where commit 554c8aa8ecad is applied.
>
> Can you replace pcc-cpufreq with a different cpufreq driver on the
> affected systems?  If so, do performance numbers look bad after that
> too?

Also, what cpufreq governor do you use with pcc-cpufreq?  Does
changing it to something like "performance" improve things?