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: <20180813105034.GB9851@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:50:34 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        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

On 13/08/18 11:12, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 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.

Ah, right. But isn't possible to distinguish between classes? I mean, if
you would know that only CFS is clamped (boosted) in this case, you
could have:

 util = util_rt + uclamp(util_cfs) = 40 + 50 = 90%

Which should do what one expects w/o energy side effects?