linux-kernel - Re: default cpufreq gov, was: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

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: <20201022151200.GC92942@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:12:00 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr>,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: default cpufreq gov, was: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:58:13PM +0100 Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 22/10/2020 15:52, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:29:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> >>>> intel_pstate/active mode.
> >>>
> >>> I agree in general, but IMO it would not be prudent to do that without making
> >>> schedutil provide the same level of performance in all of the relevant use
> >>> cases.
> >>
> >> Agreed; I though to have understood we were there already.
> > 
> > AFAIK, not quite (added Giovanni as he has been paying more attention).
> > Schedutil has improved since it was merged but not to the extent where
> > it is a drop-in replacement. The standard it needs to meet is that
> > it is at least equivalent to powersave (in intel_pstate language)
> > or ondemand (acpi_cpufreq) and within a reasonable percentage of the
> > performance governor. Defaulting to performance is a) giving up and b)
> > the performance governor is not a universal win. There are some questions
> > currently on whether schedutil is good enough when HWP is not available.
> > There was some evidence (I don't have the data, Giovanni was looking into
> > it) that HWP was a requirement to make schedutil work well. That is a
> > hazard in itself because someone could test on the latest gen Intel CPU
> > and conclude everything is fine and miss that Intel-specific technology
> > is needed to make it work well while throwing everyone else under a bus.
> > Giovanni knows a lot more than I do about this, I could be wrong or
> > forgetting things.
> > 
> > For distros, switching to schedutil by default would be nice because
> > frequency selection state would follow the task instead of being per-cpu
> > and we could stop worrying about different HWP implementations but it's
> > not at the point where the switch is advisable. I would expect hard data
> > before switching the default and still would strongly advise having a
> > period of time where we can fall back when someone inevitably finds a
> > new corner case or exception.
> 
> ..and it would be really useful for distros to know when the hard data
> is available so that they can make an informed decision when to move to
> schedutil.
>

I think distros are on the hook to generate that hard data themselves
with which to make such a decision.  I don't expect it to be done by
someone else. 

> > 
> > For reference, SLUB had the same problem for years. It was switched
> > on by default in the kernel config but it was a long time before
> > SLUB was generally equivalent to SLAB in terms of performance. Block
> > multiqueue also had vaguely similar issues before the default changes
> > and a period of time before it was removed removed (example whinging mail
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170803085115.r2jfz2lofy5spfdb@techsingularity.net/)
> > It's schedutil's turn :P
> > 
> 

Agreed. I'd like the option to switch back if we make the default change.
It's on the table and I'd like to be able to go that way. 

Cheers,
Phil

--