linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/fair: Make feec() consider uclamp restrictions

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: <20191203155907.2086-5-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Date:   Tue,  3 Dec 2019 15:59:07 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        qperret@...gle.com, qais.yousef@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/fair: Make feec() consider uclamp restrictions

We've just made task_fits_capacity() uclamp-aware, and
find_energy_efficient_cpu() needs to go through the same treatment.
Things are somewhat different here however - we can't directly use
the now uclamp-aware task_fits_capacity(). Consider the following setup:

  rq.cpu_capacity_orig = 512
  rq.util_avg = 200
  rq.uclamp.max = 768

  p.util_est = 600
  p.uclamp.max = 256

  (p not yet enqueued on rq)

Using task_fits_capacity() here would tell us that p fits on the above CPU.
However, enqueuing p on that CPU *will* cause it to become overutilized
since rq clamp values are max-aggregated, so we'd remain with

  rq.uclamp.max = 768

Thus we could reach a high enough frequency to reach beyond 0.8 * 512
utilization (== overutilized). What feec() needs here is
uclamp_rq_util_with() which lets us peek at the future utilization
landscape, including rq-wide uclamp values.

Make find_energy_efficient_cpu() use uclamp_rq_util_with() for its
fits_capacity() check. This is in line with what compute_energy() ends up
using for estimating utilization.

Suggested-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index dc3e86cb2b2e..cc659a3944f1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6284,9 +6284,18 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
 			if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
 				continue;

-			/* Skip CPUs that will be overutilized. */
 			util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, cpu);
 			cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
+			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
+
+			/*
+			 * Skip CPUs that cannot satisfy the capacity request.
+			 * IOW, placing the task there would make the CPU
+			 * overutilized. Take uclamp into account to see how
+			 * much capacity we can get out of the CPU; this is
+			 * aligned with schedutil_cpu_util().
+			 */
+			util = uclamp_rq_util_with(cpu_rq(cpu), util, p);
 			if (!fits_capacity(util, cpu_cap))
 				continue;

@@ -6301,7 +6310,6 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
 			 * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity in
 			 * the performance domain
 			 */
-			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
 			if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap) {
 				max_spare_cap = spare_cap;
 				max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
-- 
2.24.0