linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 16:11:18 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default
 boost value

On 05/29/20 11:21, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:51:31PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > Indeed, that one. The fact that regular distros cannot enable this
> > > feature due to performance overhead is unfortunate. It means there is a
> > > lot less potential for this stuff.
> > 
> > I had a humble try to catch the overhead but wasn't successful. The observation
> > wasn't missed by us too then.
> > 
> 
> As with all things, it's perfectly possible I was looking at a workload
> where the cost is more obvious but given that the functions are inlined,
> it's not trivial to spot. I just happened to spot it because I was paying
> close attention to try_to_wake_up() at the time.

Indeed.

> 
> > On my Ubuntu 18.04 machine uclamp is enabled by default by the way. 5.3 kernel
> > though, so uclamp task group stuff not there yet. Should check how their server
> > distro looks like.
> > 
> 
> Elsewhere in the thread, I showed some results based on 5.7 so uclamp
> task group existed but I had it disabled. The uclamp related parts of
> the kconfig were
> 
> # zgrep UCLAMP kconfig-5.7.0-rc7-with-clamp.txt.gz
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK=y
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT=5
> # CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP is not set

So you never had the TASK_GROUP part enabled when you noticed the regression?
Or is it the other way around, you just disabled CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP to
'fix' it?

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef