| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAPJCdBkuENFgm0XAemZzNVOtTdkxEioyWkZH81pDuLfY8jJ-mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 22:19:45 +0800
From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>
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>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: avoid vruntime compensation for SCHED_IDLE task
Hi,
On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:04, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 12:15, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Vincent
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply.:)
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 20:55, Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 09:33, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Vincent and Peter
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 22:09, Vincent Guittot
> > > > <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 15:44, <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's been said, not compensating the vruntime for a sched_idle task
> > > > > > > makes sense for me. Even if that will only help for others task in the
> > > > > > > same cfs_rq
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, but it is worth the extra pointer chasing and branches?
> > > > >
> > > > > For that I let Jiang provides figures to show the worthful
> > > > Using the following configuration for rt-app,
> > > > {
> > > > "tasks" : {
> > > > "task_other" : {
> > > > "instance" : 1, //only 1 instance to be easy to observe
> > > > "cpus" : [2],
> > > > "loop" : 2000,
> > > > "policy" : "SCHED_OTHER",
> > > > "run" : -1, //make normal task 100% running
> > > > "priority" : 0,
> > > > "sleep" : 0
> > > > },
> > > > "task_idle" : {
> > > > "instance" : 1,
> > > > "cpus" : [2],
> > > > "loop" : 2000,
> > > > "policy" : "SCHED_IDLE",
> > > > "run" : 1, //only run 1us to avoid
> > > > blocking(always waiting for running), making check_preempt_wakeup
> > > > work(S->R switching)
> > > > "timer" : { "ref" : "unique2" , "period" :
> > > > 16000, "mode" : "absolute" }
> > > > }
> > > > },
> > > > "global" : {
> > > > "calibration" : "CPU0",
> > > > "default_policy" : "SCHED_OTHER",
> > > > "duration" : -1
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > without the patch,
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d.h. 42478.177771: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=39772 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d... 42478.190437: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=39771 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=39772 next_prio=120
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d.h. 42478.193771: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=39772 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d... 42478.206438: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=39771 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=39772 next_prio=120
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d.h. 42478.209771: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=39772 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d... 42478.222438: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=39771 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=39772 next_prio=120
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d.h. 42478.225771: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=39772 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > <...>-39771 [002] d... 42478.238438: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=39771 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=39772 next_prio=120
> > > > *task_idle* preempts every 12ms because of the compensation.
> > > >
> > > > with the patch,
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d.h. 136785.278059: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=27671 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d... 136785.293623: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=27670 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=27671 next_prio=120
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d.h. 136785.294059: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=27671 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d... 136785.317624: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=27670 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=27671 next_prio=120
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d.h. 136785.326059: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=27671 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d... 136785.341622: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=27670 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=27671 next_prio=120
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d.h. 136785.342059: sched_wakeup:
> > > > comm=task_idle-1 pid=27671 prio=120 target_cpu=002
> > > > task_other-0-27670 [002] d... 136785.365623: sched_switch:
> > > > prev_comm=task_other-0 prev_pid=27670 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==>
> > > > next_comm=task_idle-1 next_pid=27671 next_prio=120
> > > > *task_idle* preempts every 24 or 16 ms.
> > > >
> > > > This patch could reduce the preempting frequency of task_idle, and
> > > > reduce the interference from SCHED_IDLE task.
> > >
> > > For this use case, the preemption is only 1us long. Is it a realistic
> > > problem use case ? your normal threads might be more impacted by tick,
> > Nop.
> > 1us is just to make the logic in place_entity() work. If the preemption is
> > longer, the IDLE task could not finish its work before being preempted back
> > by normal task, and the IDLE task would be always in RUNNING status from
> > then on. In that case place_entity() would never be reached because of the
> > RUNNING status.
>
> Yeah, I agree that the setup is the right one to check the worst
> wakeup pre emption period but it doesn't sound like a realistic
> problem
Indeed.
>
> Have you tried this with your system and does it improve anything ?
> Otherwise, I agree with Peter that it doesn't worth having an
> additional test in the wakeup path if it doesn't help any cases
We have not utilized SCHED_IDLE for running offline tasks, so we can
not give a realistic scenario for that.
So let's just forget about it for now.
Much appreciated for your time again. :)
Thx.
Regards,
Jiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists