linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/eas: Don't update misfit status if the task is pinned

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: <20210119164027.drfpmrol3xhf4ckc@e107158-lin>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:40:27 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/eas: Don't update misfit status if the task is
 pinned

On 01/19/21 15:35, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 Jan 2021 at 12:07:55 (+0000), Qais Yousef wrote:
> > If the task is pinned to a cpu, setting the misfit status means that
> > we'll unnecessarily continuously attempt to migrate the task but fail.
> > 
> > This continuous failure will cause the balance_interval to increase to
> > a high value, and eventually cause unnecessary significant delays in
> > balancing the system when real imbalance happens.
> > 
> > Caught while testing uclamp where rt-app calibration loop was pinned to
> > cpu 0, shortly after which we spawn another task with high util_clamp
> > value. The task was failing to migrate after over 40ms of runtime due to
> > balance_interval unnecessary expanded to a very high value from the
> > calibration loop.
> > 
> > Not done here, but it could be useful to extend the check for pinning to
> > verify that the affinity of the task has a cpu that fits. We could end
> > up in a similar situation otherwise.
> 
> Do you mean failing the sched_setaffinity syscall if e.g. the task
> has a min clamp that is higher than the capacity of the CPUs to which it
> will be pinned? If so, I'm not sure if we really want that.

No. In Android for instance, I'm worried a background task affined to little
cores that has a utilization > capacity_of(little) will trigger the same
problem. It'll be affined to more than just 1 cpu, but none of the little cpus
will actually fit.

Makes sense?

> But this patch makes sense on its own for sure, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef