linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware

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:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:53:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, qperret@...rret.net,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, dh.han@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Douglas Raillard wrote:
> On 10/17/19 10:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Now, the thing is, we use map_util_freq() in more places, and should we
> > not reflect this increase in C for all of them? That is, why is this
> > patch changing get_next_freq() and not map_util_freq().
> > 
> > I don't think that question is answered in the Changelogs.
> > 
> > Exactly because it does change the energy consumption (it must) should
> > that not also be reflected in the EAS logic?
> 
> map_util_freq() is only used in schedutil and in EAS by compute_energy(), so
> I retarget the question at compute_energy(). It is supposed to compute
> the energy consumed by a given CPU if a given task was migrated on it.
> This implies some assumptions on util signals:
> 1) util(_est.enqueued) of the task is representative of the task's
>    duty cycle (the semantic of util is somehow blurry for aperiodic tasks
>    AFAIK).
> 2) util of the task is CPU-invariant

( we know this to be false, but do indeed make this assumption because
simplicity, taking IPC differences into account would just complicate
things more )

> 3) task util + target CPU util = new target CPU util for the
>    foreseeable future, i.e. the amount of future we can predict with
>    reasonable accuracy. Otherwise we would end up moving things around
>    all the time.
> 
> Since ramp boost is designed to be transient, integrating it
> (indirectly) in "target CPU util" will add some noise to the placement
> decision, potentially rendering it obsolete as soon as the boosting
> stops. Basing a costly decision on that does not sound like a good
> idea IMHO.

Well, we _hope_ recent past is a reasonable predictor for the near
future. We of course know it'll be complete crap every so often, but
hope that on average it is true more than false :-)

Anyway, the above seems like a sensible enough argument, and seems
worthy of being part of the Changelog. Also maybe a comment in schedutil
as to why there is a map_util_freq() modifier there.