linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.8 130/232] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200827163918.xvpstc7vpn6moyjp@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:39:18 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.8 130/232] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code
 with static key

On 08/27/20 17:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:53:31PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 08/20/20 11:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> > > 
> > > [ Upstream commit 46609ce227039fd192e0ecc7d940bed587fd2c78 ]
> > > 
> > > There is a report that when uclamp is enabled, a netperf UDP test
> > > regresses compared to a kernel compiled without uclamp.
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200529100806.GA3070@suse.de/
> > > 
> > > While investigating the root cause, there were no sign that the uclamp
> > > code is doing anything particularly expensive but could suffer from bad
> > > cache behavior under certain circumstances that are yet to be
> > > understood.
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200616110824.dgkkbyapn3io6wik@e107158-lin/
> > > 
> > > To reduce the pressure on the fast path anyway, add a static key that is
> > > by default will skip executing uclamp logic in the
> > > enqueue/dequeue_task() fast path until it's needed.
> > > 
> > > As soon as the user start using util clamp by:
> > > 
> > > 	1. Changing uclamp value of a task with sched_setattr()
> > > 	2. Modifying the default sysctl_sched_util_clamp_{min, max}
> > > 	3. Modifying the default cpu.uclamp.{min, max} value in cgroup
> > > 
> > > We flip the static key now that the user has opted to use util clamp.
> > > Effectively re-introducing uclamp logic in the enqueue/dequeue_task()
> > > fast path. It stays on from that point forward until the next reboot.
> > > 
> > > This should help minimize the effect of util clamp on workloads that
> > > don't need it but still allow distros to ship their kernels with uclamp
> > > compiled in by default.
> > > 
> > > SCHED_WARN_ON() in uclamp_rq_dec_id() was removed since now we can end
> > > up with unbalanced call to uclamp_rq_dec_id() if we flip the key while
> > > a task is running in the rq. Since we know it is harmless we just
> > > quietly return if we attempt a uclamp_rq_dec_id() when
> > > rq->uclamp[].bucket[].tasks is 0.
> > > 
> > > In schedutil, we introduce a new uclamp_is_enabled() helper which takes
> > > the static key into account to ensure RT boosting behavior is retained.
> > > 
> > > The following results demonstrates how this helps on 2 Sockets Xeon E5
> > > 2x10-Cores system.
> > > 
> > >                                    nouclamp                 uclamp      uclamp-static-key
> > > Hmean     send-64         162.43 (   0.00%)      157.84 *  -2.82%*      163.39 *   0.59%*
> > > Hmean     send-128        324.71 (   0.00%)      314.78 *  -3.06%*      326.18 *   0.45%*
> > > Hmean     send-256        641.55 (   0.00%)      628.67 *  -2.01%*      648.12 *   1.02%*
> > > Hmean     send-1024      2525.28 (   0.00%)     2448.26 *  -3.05%*     2543.73 *   0.73%*
> > > Hmean     send-2048      4836.14 (   0.00%)     4712.08 *  -2.57%*     4867.69 *   0.65%*
> > > Hmean     send-3312      7540.83 (   0.00%)     7425.45 *  -1.53%*     7621.06 *   1.06%*
> > > Hmean     send-4096      9124.53 (   0.00%)     8948.82 *  -1.93%*     9276.25 *   1.66%*
> > > Hmean     send-8192     15589.67 (   0.00%)    15486.35 *  -0.66%*    15819.98 *   1.48%*
> > > Hmean     send-16384    26386.47 (   0.00%)    25752.25 *  -2.40%*    26773.74 *   1.47%*
> > > 
> > > The perf diff between nouclamp and uclamp-static-key when uclamp is
> > > disabled in the fast path:
> > > 
> > >      8.73%     -1.55%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] try_to_wake_up
> > >      0.07%     +0.04%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] deactivate_task
> > >      0.13%     -0.02%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] activate_task
> > > 
> > > The diff between nouclamp and uclamp-static-key when uclamp is enabled
> > > in the fast path:
> > > 
> > >      8.73%     -0.72%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] try_to_wake_up
> > >      0.13%     +0.39%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] activate_task
> > >      0.07%     +0.38%  [kernel.kallsyms]        [k] deactivate_task
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 69842cba9ace ("sched/uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting")
> > > Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200630112123.12076-3-qais.yousef@arm.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Greg/Peter/Mel
> > 
> > Should this go to 5.4 too? Not saying it should, but I don't know if distros
> > could care about potential performance hit that this patch addresses.
> 
> If you want to provide a backported version of this to 5.4.y, that you
> have tested that works properly, I will be glad to queue it up.

The conflict was simple enough to resolve. I'll test them tomorrow and post
2 patches.

Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef