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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200605104517.r65dqhzavnnrnfb2@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:45:17 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        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>,
        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>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fs <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default
 boost value

On 06/04/20 14:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I have tried your patch and I don't see any difference compared to
> previous tests. Let me give you more details of my setup:
> I create 3 levels of cgroups and usually run the tests in the 4 levels
> (which includes root). The result above are for the root level
> 
> But I see a difference at other levels:
> 
>                            root           level 1       level 2       level 3
> 
> /w patch uclamp disable     50097         46615         43806         41078
> tip uclamp enable           48706(-2.78%) 45583(-2.21%) 42851(-2.18%)
> 40313(-1.86%)
> /w patch uclamp enable      48882(-2.43%) 45774(-1.80%) 43108(-1.59%)
> 40667(-1.00%)
> 
> Whereas tip with uclamp stays around 2% behind tip without uclamp, the
> diff of uclamp with your patch tends to decrease when we increase the
> number of level

Thanks for the extra info. Let me try this.

If you can run perf and verify that you see activate/deactivate_task showing up
as overhead I'd appreciate it. Just to confirm that indeed what we're seeing
here are symptoms of the same problem Mel is seeing.

> Beside this, that's also interesting to notice the ~6% of perf impact
> between each level for the same image

Interesting indeed.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef