| 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:04:19 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: fair: Use the earliest break even
On 12/03/2020 09:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 21:28, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> In the idle CPU selection process occuring in the slow path via the
>> find_idlest_group_cpu() function, we pick up in priority an idle CPU
>> with the shallowest idle state otherwise we fall back to the least
>> loaded CPU.
>
> The idea makes sense but this path is only used by fork and exec so
> I'm not sure about the real impact
I agree the fork / exec path is called much less often than the wake
path but it makes more sense for the decision.
>> In order to be more energy efficient but without impacting the
>> performances, let's use another criteria: the break even deadline.
>>
>> At idle time, when we store the idle state the CPU is entering in, we
>> compute the next deadline where the CPU could be woken up without
>> spending more energy to sleep.
>>
>> At the selection process, we use the shallowest CPU but in addition we
>> choose the one with the minimal break even deadline instead of relying
>> on the idle_timestamp. When the CPU is idle, the timestamp has less
>> meaning because the CPU could have wake up and sleep again several times
>> without exiting the idle loop. In this case the break even deadline is
>> more relevant as it increases the probability of choosing a CPU which
>> reached its break even.
>>
>> Tested on:
>> - a synquacer 24 cores, 6 sched domains
>> - a hikey960 HMP 8 cores, 2 sched domains, with the EAS and energy probe
>>
>> sched/perf and messaging does not show a performance regression. Ran
>> 50 times schbench, adrestia and forkbench.
>>
>> The tools described at https://lwn.net/Articles/724935/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> | Synquacer | With break even | Without break even |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> | schbench *99.0th | 14844.8 | 15017.6 |
>> | adrestia / periodic | 57.95 | 57 |
>> | adrestia / single | 49.3 | 55.4 |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Have you got some figures or cpuidle statistics for the syncquacer ?
No, and we just noticed the syncquacer has a bug in the firmware and
does not actually go to the idle states.
>> | Hikey960 | With break even | Without break even |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> | schbench *99.0th | 56140.8 | 56256 |
>> | schbench energy | 153.575 | 152.676 |
>> | adrestia / periodic | 4.98 | 5.2 |
>> | adrestia / single | 9.02 | 9.12 |
>> | adrestia energy | 1.18 | 1.233 |
>> | forkbench | 7.971 | 8.05 |
>> | forkbench energy | 9.37 | 9.42 |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>> kernel/sched/idle.c | 8 +++++++-
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 4b5d5e5e701e..8bd6ea148db7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5793,6 +5793,7 @@ find_idlest_group_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this
>> {
>> unsigned long load, min_load = ULONG_MAX;
>> unsigned int min_exit_latency = UINT_MAX;
>> + s64 min_break_even = S64_MAX;
>> u64 latest_idle_timestamp = 0;
>> int least_loaded_cpu = this_cpu;
>> int shallowest_idle_cpu = -1;
>> @@ -5810,6 +5811,8 @@ find_idlest_group_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this
>> if (available_idle_cpu(i)) {
>> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>> struct cpuidle_state *idle = idle_get_state(rq);
>> + s64 break_even = idle_get_break_even(rq);
>> +
>> if (idle && idle->exit_latency < min_exit_latency) {
>> /*
>> * We give priority to a CPU whose idle state
>> @@ -5817,10 +5820,21 @@ find_idlest_group_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this
>> * of any idle timestamp.
>> */
>> min_exit_latency = idle->exit_latency;
>> + min_break_even = break_even;
>> latest_idle_timestamp = rq->idle_stamp;
>> shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> - } else if ((!idle || idle->exit_latency == min_exit_latency) &&
>> - rq->idle_stamp > latest_idle_timestamp) {
>> + } else if ((idle && idle->exit_latency == min_exit_latency) &&
>> + break_even < min_break_even) {
>> + /*
>> + * We give priority to the shallowest
>> + * idle states with the minimal break
>> + * even deadline to decrease the
>> + * probability to choose a CPU which
>> + * did not reach its break even yet
>> + */
>> + min_break_even = break_even;
>> + shallowest_idle_cpu = i;
>> + } else if (!idle && rq->idle_stamp > latest_idle_timestamp) {
>> /*
>> * If equal or no active idle state, then
>> * the most recently idled CPU might have
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> index b743bf38f08f..3342e7bae072 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> @@ -19,7 +19,13 @@ extern char __cpuidle_text_start[], __cpuidle_text_end[];
>> */
>> void sched_idle_set_state(struct cpuidle_state *idle_state)
>> {
>> - idle_set_state(this_rq(), idle_state);
>> + struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>> +
>> + idle_set_state(rq, idle_state);
>
> Shouldn't the state be set after setting break even otherwise you will
> have a time window with an idle_state != null but the break_even still
> set to the previous value
IIUC we are protected in this section. Otherwise the routine above would
be also wrong [if (idle && idle->exit_latency)], no?
>> +
>> + if (idle_state)
>> + idle_set_break_even(rq, ktime_get_ns() +
>
> What worries me a bit is that it adds one ktime_get call each time a
> cpu enters idle
Right, we can improve this in the future by folding the local_clock() in
cpuidle when entering idle with this ktime_get.
>> + idle_state->exit_latency_ns);
>> }
[ ... ]
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists