| 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: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:40:36 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
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>,
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 Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 29.05.20 12:08, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:11:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> FWIW, I think you're referring to Mel's notice in OSPM regarding the overhead.
> >>> Trying to see what goes on in there.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > During that talk, I was a vague about the cost, admitted I had not looked
> > too closely at mainline performance and had since deleted the data given
> > that the problem was first spotted in early April. If I heard someone
> > else making statements like I did at the talk, I would consider it a bit
> > vague, potentially FUD, possibly wrong and worth rechecking myself. In
> > terms of distributions "cannot enable this", we could but I was unwilling
> > to pay the cost for a feature no one has asked for yet. If they had, I
> > would endevour to put it behind static branches and disable it by default
> > (like what happened for PSI). I was contacted offlist about my comments
> > at OSPM and gathered new data to respond properly. For the record, here
> > is an editted version of my response;
>
> [...]
>
> I ran these tests on 'Ubuntu 18.04 Desktop' on Intel E5-2690 v2
> (2 sockets * 10 cores * 2 threads) with powersave governor as:
>
> $ numactl -N 0 ./run-mmtests.sh XXX
>
> w/ config-network-netperf-unbound.
>
> Running w/o 'numactl -N 0' gives slightly worse results.
>
> without-clamp : CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK is not set
> with-clamp : CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK=y,
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP is not set
> with-clamp-tskgrp : CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK=y,
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP=y
>
>
> netperf-udp
> ./5.7.0-rc7 ./5.7.0-rc7 ./5.7.0-rc7
> without-clamp with-clamp with-clamp-tskgrp
>
> Hmean send-64 153.62 ( 0.00%) 151.80 * -1.19%* 155.60 * 1.28%*
> Hmean send-128 306.77 ( 0.00%) 306.27 * -0.16%* 309.39 * 0.85%*
> Hmean send-256 608.54 ( 0.00%) 604.28 * -0.70%* 613.42 * 0.80%*
> Hmean send-1024 2395.80 ( 0.00%) 2365.67 * -1.26%* 2409.50 * 0.57%*
> Hmean send-2048 4608.70 ( 0.00%) 4544.02 * -1.40%* 4665.96 * 1.24%*
> Hmean send-3312 7223.97 ( 0.00%) 7158.88 * -0.90%* 7331.23 * 1.48%*
> Hmean send-4096 8729.53 ( 0.00%) 8598.78 * -1.50%* 8860.47 * 1.50%*
> Hmean send-8192 14961.77 ( 0.00%) 14418.92 * -3.63%* 14908.36 * -0.36%*
> Hmean send-16384 25799.50 ( 0.00%) 25025.64 * -3.00%* 25831.20 * 0.12%*
> Hmean recv-64 153.62 ( 0.00%) 151.80 * -1.19%* 155.60 * 1.28%*
> Hmean recv-128 306.77 ( 0.00%) 306.27 * -0.16%* 309.39 * 0.85%*
> Hmean recv-256 608.54 ( 0.00%) 604.28 * -0.70%* 613.42 * 0.80%*
> Hmean recv-1024 2395.80 ( 0.00%) 2365.67 * -1.26%* 2409.50 * 0.57%*
> Hmean recv-2048 4608.70 ( 0.00%) 4544.02 * -1.40%* 4665.95 * 1.24%*
> Hmean recv-3312 7223.97 ( 0.00%) 7158.88 * -0.90%* 7331.23 * 1.48%*
> Hmean recv-4096 8729.53 ( 0.00%) 8598.78 * -1.50%* 8860.47 * 1.50%*
> Hmean recv-8192 14961.61 ( 0.00%) 14418.88 * -3.63%* 14908.30 * -0.36%*
> Hmean recv-16384 25799.39 ( 0.00%) 25025.49 * -3.00%* 25831.00 * 0.12%*
>
> netperf-tcp
>
> Hmean 64 818.65 ( 0.00%) 812.98 * -0.69%* 826.17 * 0.92%*
> Hmean 128 1569.55 ( 0.00%) 1555.79 * -0.88%* 1586.94 * 1.11%*
> Hmean 256 2952.86 ( 0.00%) 2915.07 * -1.28%* 2968.15 * 0.52%*
> Hmean 1024 10425.91 ( 0.00%) 10296.68 * -1.24%* 10418.38 * -0.07%*
> Hmean 2048 17454.51 ( 0.00%) 17369.57 * -0.49%* 17419.24 * -0.20%*
> Hmean 3312 22509.95 ( 0.00%) 22229.69 * -1.25%* 22373.32 * -0.61%*
> Hmean 4096 25033.23 ( 0.00%) 24859.59 * -0.69%* 24912.50 * -0.48%*
> Hmean 8192 32080.51 ( 0.00%) 31744.51 * -1.05%* 31800.45 * -0.87%*
> Hmean 16384 36531.86 ( 0.00%) 37064.68 * 1.46%* 37397.71 * 2.37%*
>
> The diffs are smaller than on openSUSE Leap 15.1 and some of the
> uclamp taskgroup results are better?
>
I don't see the stddev and coeff but these look close to borderline.
Sure, they are marked with a * so it passed a significant test but it's
still a very marginal difference for netperf. It's possible that the
systemd configurations differ in some way that is significant for uclamp
but I don't know what that is.
> With this test setup we now can play with the uclamp code in
> enqueue_task() and dequeue_task().
>
That is still true. An annotated perf profile should tell you if the
uclamp code is being heavily used or if it's bailing early but it's also
possible that uclamp overhead is not a big deal on your particular
machine.
The possibility that either the distribution, the machine or both are
critical for detecting a problem with uclamp may explain why any overhead
was missed. Even if it is marginal, it still makes sense to minimise the
amount of uclamp code that is executed if no limit is specified for tasks.
> ---
>
> W/ config-network-netperf-unbound (only netperf-udp and buffer size 64):
>
> $ perf diff 5.7.0-rc7_without-clamp/perf.data 5.7.0-rc7_with-clamp/perf.data | grep activate_task
>
> # Event 'cycles:ppp'
> #
> # Baseline Delta Abs Shared Object Symbol
>
> 0.02% +0.54% [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
> 0.02% +0.38% [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
>
> $ perf diff 5.7.0-rc7_without-clamp/perf.data 5.7.0-rc7_with-clamp-tskgrp/perf.data | grep activate_task
>
> 0.02% +0.35% [kernel.vmlinux] [k] activate_task
> 0.02% +0.34% [kernel.vmlinux] [k] deactivate_task
>
> ---
>
> I still see 20 out of 90 tests with the warning message that the
> desired confidence was not achieved though.
>
> "
> !!! WARNING
> !!! Desired confidence was not achieved within the specified iterations.
> !!! This implies that there was variability in the test environment that
> !!! must be investigated before going further.
> !!! Confidence intervals: Throughput : 6.727% <-- more than 5% !!!
> !!! Local CPU util : 0.000%
> !!! Remote CPU util : 0.000%
> "
>
> mmtests seems to run netperf with the following '-I' and 'i' parameter
> hardcoded: 'netperf -t UDP_STREAM -i 3,3 -I 95,5'
The reason is that netperf on localhost can be a bit unreliable. It also
hits problems with shared locks and atomics that do not necessarily happen
when running netperf between two physical machines. When running netperf
with something like "-I 99,1" it can take a highly variable amount of
time to run and you are left with no clue how variable it really is or
whether it's anywhere close to the "true mean". Hence, in mmtests I
opted to run netperf multiple times with low confidence to get an idea
of how variable the test is.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists