linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 08/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: Add utilization clamping for FAIR 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: <20190122171314.GS27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:13:14 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
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 08/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: Add utilization clamping
 for FAIR tasks

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:05AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> @@ -342,11 +350,24 @@ static void sugov_iowait_boost(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time,
>  		return;
>  	sg_cpu->iowait_boost_pending = true;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Boost FAIR tasks only up to the CPU clamped utilization.
> +	 *
> +	 * Since DL tasks have a much more advanced bandwidth control, it's
> +	 * safe to assume that IO boost does not apply to those tasks.

I'm not buying that argument. IO-boost isn't related to b/w management.

IO-boot is more about compensating for hidden dependencies, and those
don't get less hidden for using a different scheduling class.

Now, arguably DL should not be doing IO in the first place, but that's a
whole different discussion.

> +	 * Instead, since RT tasks are not utilization clamped, we don't want
> +	 * to apply clamping on IO boost while there is blocked RT
> +	 * utilization.
> +	 */
> +	max_boost = sg_cpu->iowait_boost_max;
> +	if (!cpu_util_rt(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)))
> +		max_boost = uclamp_util(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu), max_boost);
> +
>  	/* Double the boost at each request */
>  	if (sg_cpu->iowait_boost) {
>  		sg_cpu->iowait_boost <<= 1;
> -		if (sg_cpu->iowait_boost > sg_cpu->iowait_boost_max)
> -			sg_cpu->iowait_boost = sg_cpu->iowait_boost_max;
> +		if (sg_cpu->iowait_boost > max_boost)
> +			sg_cpu->iowait_boost = max_boost;
>  		return;
>  	}

Hurmph...  so I'm not sold on this bit.