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  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, 14 Feb 2020 14:37:08 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        qperret@...gle.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:49:48PM +0000, Douglas Raillard wrote:

> > description of it all somewhere.
> 
> Now a textual version of it:
> 
> em_pd_get_higher_freq() does the following:
> 
> # Turn the abstract cost margin on the EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE into a
> # concrete value. cost_margin=EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE will give a concrete
> # value of "max_cost", which is the highest OPP on that CPU.
> concrete_margin = (cost_margin * max_cost) / EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE;
> 
> # Then it finds the lowest OPP satisfying min_freq:
> min_opp = OPP_AT_FREQ(min_freq)
> 
> # It takes the cost associated, and finds the highest OPP that has a
> # cost lower than that:
> max_cost = COST_OF(min_opp) + concrete_margin
> 
> final_freq = MAX(
> 	FREQ_OF(opp)
> 	for opp in available_opps
> 	if COST_OF(opp) <= max_cost
> )

Right; I got that.

> So this means that:
>    util - util_est_enqueued ~= 0

Only if you assume the task will get scheduled out reasonably frequent.

> => cost_margin              ~= 0
> => concrete_cost_margin     ~= 0
> => max_cost   = COST_OF(min_opp) + 0
> => final_freq = FREQ_OF(min_opp)
> 
> The effective boost is ~0, so you will get the current behaviour of
> schedutil.

But the argument holds; because if things don't get scheduled out, we'll
peg u = 1 and hit f = 1 and all is well anyway.

Which is a useful property; it shows that in the steady state, this
patch-set is a NOP, but the above argument only relies on 'util_avg >
util_est' being used a trigger.

> If the task starts needing more cycles than during its previous period,
> `util - util_est_enqueued` will grow like util since util_est_enqueued
> is constant. The longer we wait, the higher the boost, until the task
> goes to sleep again.
> 
> At next wakeup, util_est_enqueued has caught up and either:
> 1) util becomes stable, so no more boosting
> 2) util keeps increasing, so go for another round of boosting

Agreed; however elsewhere you wrote:

> 1) If you care more about predictable battery life (or energy bill) than
> predictability of the boost feature, EM should be used.
>
> 2) If you don't have an EM or you care more about having a predictable
> boost for a given workload, use util (or disable that boost).

This is the part I'm still not sure about; how do the specifics of the
cost_margin setup lead to 1), or how would some frobbing with frequency
selection destroy that property.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists