linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting

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]

Date:   Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:57:52 +0200
From:   Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...rret.net>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency
 invariant accounting

On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 10:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:24 AM Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:31 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:29:26 PM CEST Giovanni Gherdovich
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > intel_pstate has two operating modes: active and passive. In "active"
> > > > > mode, the in-built scaling governor is used and in "passive" mode, the
> > > > > driver can be used with any governor like "schedutil". In "active" mode
> > > > > the utilization values from schedutil is not used and there is a
> > > > > requirement from high performance computing use cases, not to readas
> > > > > well any APERF/MPERF MSRs.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, this isn't quite convincing.
> > > > 
> > > > In particular, I don't see why the "don't read APERF/MPERF MSRs" argument
> > > > applies *only* to intel_pstate in the "active" mode.  What about
> > > > intel_pstate in the "passive" mode combined with the "performance"
> > > > governor?  Or any other governor different from "schedutil" for that
> > > > matter?
> > > > 
> > > > And what about acpi_cpufreq combined with any governor different from
> > > > "schedutil"?
> > > > 
> > > > Scale invariance is not really needed in all of those cases right now
> > > > AFAICS, or is it?
> > > 
> > > Correct. This is just part of the patch to disable in active mode
> > > (particularly in HWP and performance mode).
> > > 
> > > But this patch is 2 years old. The folks who wanted this, disable
> > > intel-pstate and use userspace governor with acpi-cpufreq. So may be
> > > better to address those cases too.
> > 
> > I disagree with "scale invariance is needed only by the schedutil governor";
> > the two other users are the CPU's estimated utilization in the wakeup path,
> > via cpu_util_without(), as well as the load-balance path, via cpu_util() which
> > is used by update_sg_lb_stats().
> 
> OK, so there are reasons to run the scale invariance code which are
> not related to the cpufreq governor in use.
> 
> I wonder then why those reasons are not relevant for intel_pstate in
> the "active" mode.
> 
> > Also remember that scale invariance is applied to both PELT signals util_avg
> > and load_avg; schedutil uses the former but not the latter.
> > 
> > I understand Srinivas patch to disable MSR accesses during the tick as a
> > band-aid solution to address a specific use case he cares about, but I don't
> > think that extending this approach to any non-schedutil governor is a good
> > idea -- you'd be killing load balancing in the process.
> 
> But that is also the case for intel_pstate in the "active" mode, isn't it?

Sure it is.

Now, what's the performance impact of loosing scale-invariance in PELT signals?
And what's the performance impact of accessing two MSRs at the scheduler tick
on each CPU?

I am sporting Srinivas' patch because he expressed the concern that the losses
don't justify the gains for a specific class of users (supercomputing),
although I don't fully like the idea (and arguably that should be measured).


Giovanni