linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting

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: <20190121155407.gv4cxpg2njqmdlj5@e110439-lin>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:54:07 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets
 refcounting

On 21-Jan 16:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:01AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> 
> > +struct uclamp_bucket {
> > +	unsigned long value : bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > +	unsigned long tasks : BITS_PER_LONG - bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > +};
> 
> > +struct uclamp_cpu {
> > +	unsigned int value;
> 
> 	/* 4 byte hole */
> 
> > +	struct uclamp_bucket bucket[UCLAMP_BUCKETS];
> > +};
> 
> With the default of 5, this UCLAMP_BUCKETS := 6, so struct uclamp_cpu
> ends up being 7 'unsigned long's, or 56 bytes on 64bit (with a 4 byte
> hole).

Yes, that's dimensioned and configured to fit into a single cache line
for all the possible 5 (by default) clamp values of a clamp index
(i.e. min or max util).

> 
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * This is the main, per-CPU runqueue data structure.
> >   *
> > @@ -835,6 +879,11 @@ struct rq {
> >  	unsigned long		nr_load_updates;
> >  	u64			nr_switches;
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> > +	/* Utilization clamp values based on CPU's RUNNABLE tasks */
> > +	struct uclamp_cpu	uclamp[UCLAMP_CNT] ____cacheline_aligned;
> 
> Which makes this 112 bytes with 8 bytes in 2 holes, which is short of 2
> 64 byte cachelines.

Right, we have 2 cache lines where:
- the first $L tracks 5 different util_min values
- the second $L tracks 5 different util_max values

> Is that the best layout?

It changed few times and that's what I found more reasonable for both
for fitting the default configuration and also for code readability.
Notice that we access RQ and SE clamp values with the same patter,
for example:

   {rq|p}->uclamp[clamp_idx].value

Are you worried about the holes or something else specific ?

> > +#endif
> > +
> >  	struct cfs_rq		cfs;
> >  	struct rt_rq		rt;
> >  	struct dl_rq		dl;
> > -- 
> > 2.19.2
> > 

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi