linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping for RT tasks

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: <20180813101221.GA2605@e110439-lin>
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:12:21 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        "Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@...gle.com>, surenb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping
 for RT tasks

Hi Vincent!

On 09-Aug 18:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 07-Aug 15:26, Juri Lelli wrote:

[...]

> > > > +   util_cfs = cpu_util_cfs(rq);
> > > > +   util_rt  = cpu_util_rt(rq);
> > > > +   if (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)) {
> > > > +           util = 0;
> > > > +           if (util_cfs)
> > > > +                   util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_cfs);
> > > > +           if (util_rt)
> > > > +                   util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_rt);
> > > > +   } else {
> > > > +           util  = cpu_util_cfs(rq);
> > > > +           util += cpu_util_rt(rq);
> > > > +           util  = uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util);
> > > > +   }
> >
> > Regarding the two policies, do you have any comment?
> 
> Does the policy for (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)== true) really
> make sense as it is ?
> I mean, uclamp_util doesn't make any difference between rt and cfs
> tasks when clamping the utilization so why should be add twice the
> returned value ?
> IMHO, this policy would make sense if there were something like
> uclamp_util_rt() and a uclamp_util_cfs()

The idea for the UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is to improve fairness on
low-priority classese, especially when we have high RT utilization.

Let say we have:

 util_rt  = 40%, util_min=0%
 util_cfs = 10%, util_min=50%

the two policies will select:

  UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40) + uclamp(10) = 50 + 50   = 100%
 !UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40 + 10)         = uclmp(50) =  50%

Which means that, despite the CPU's util_min will be set to 50% when
CFS is running, these tasks will have almost no boost at all, since
their bandwidth margin is eclipsed by RT tasks.

> > We had an internal discussion and we found pro/cons for both... but

The UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is thus less energy efficiency but it
should grant a better "isolation" in terms of what is the expected
speed-up a task will get at run-time, independently from higher
priority classes.

Does that make sense?

> > I'm not sure keeping the sched_feat is a good solution on the long
> > run, i.e. mainline merge ;)

This problem still stands...

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi