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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:17:36 +0100 From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>, Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>, Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com> Subject: Re: [Patch v8 4/7] sched/fair: Enable periodic update of average thermal pressure On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:40:45AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Thursday 16 Jan 2020 at 16:15:02 (+0100), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > @@ -10275,6 +10281,7 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued) > > > > { > > > > struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq; > > > > struct sched_entity *se = &curr->se; > > > > + unsigned long thermal_pressure = arch_cpu_thermal_pressure(cpu_of(rq)); > > > > > > > > for_each_sched_entity(se) { > > > > cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); > > > > @@ -10286,6 +10293,7 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued) > > > > > > > > update_misfit_status(curr, rq); > > > > update_overutilized_status(task_rq(curr)); > > > > + update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq, thermal_pressure); > > > > } > > > > > > I'm thinking this is the wrong place; should this not be in > > > scheduler_tick(), right before calling sched_class::task_tick() ? Surely > > > any execution will affect thermals, not only fair class execution. > > > > Right, but right now only CFS takes action when we overheat. That is, > > only CFS uses capacity_of() which is where the thermal signal gets > > reflected. > > Sure, but we should still track the thermals unconditionally, even if > only CFS consumes it. I agree, tracking thermal pressure should happen even if no cfs task are running > > > We definitely could (and maybe should) make RT and DL react to thermal > > pressure as well when they're both capacity-aware. But perhaps that's > > for later ? Thoughts ? > > Yeah, that's later head-aches. Even determining what to do there, except > panic() is going to be 'interesting'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists