linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix overutilized update in enqueue_task

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:52:18 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...rret.net>,
        "open list\:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix overutilized update in enqueue_task_fair()


On 12/11/20 12:38, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Nov 2020 at 12:29:59 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> Alternatively: how much does not updating the overutilized status here help
>> us? The next tick will unconditionally update it, which for arm64 is
>> anywhere in the next ]0, 4]ms. That "fake" fork-time util_avg should already
>> be accounted in the rq util_avg, and even if the new task was running the
>> entire time, 4ms doesn't buy us much decay.
>
> Yes, this is arguably a dodgy hack, which will not save us in a number
> of cases. The only situation where this helps is for short-lived tasks
> that will run only once. And this is a sadly common programming pattern.
>
> So yeah, this is not the prettiest thing in the world, but it doesn't
> cost us much and helps some real-world workloads, so ...
>

Aye aye

> Thanks,
> Quentin