linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] sched/fair: Introduce a CPU capacity comparison helper

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:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:04:47 +0530
From:   Chandra Sekhar Lingutla <clingutla@...eaurora.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] sched/fair: Introduce a CPU capacity comparison
 helper

Hi Valentin,

The reduced margin is helping our platforms, Please feel free to add my 
tested-by tag:

Tested-by:  Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@...eaurora.org>

On 3/11/2021 5:35 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> During load-balance, groups classified as group_misfit_task are filtered
> out if they do not pass
>
>    group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity(<candidate group>, <local group>);
>
> which itself employs fits_capacity() to compare the sgc->max_capacity of
> both groups.
>
> Due to the underlying margin, fits_capacity(X, 1024) will return false for
> any X > 819. Tough luck, the capacity_orig's on e.g. the Pixel 4 are
> {261, 871, 1024}. If a CPU-bound task ends up on one of those "medium"
> CPUs, misfit migration will never intentionally upmigrate it to a CPU of
> higher capacity due to the aforementioned margin.
>
> One may argue the 20% margin of fits_capacity() is excessive in the advent
> of counter-enhanced load tracking (APERF/MPERF, AMUs), but one point here
> is that fits_capacity() is meant to compare a utilization value to a
> capacity value, whereas here it is being used to compare two capacity
> values. As CPU capacity and task utilization have different dynamics, a
> sensible approach here would be to add a new helper dedicated to comparing
> CPU capacities.
>
> Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---
>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index db892f6e222f..ddb2ab3edf6d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
>    */
>   #define fits_capacity(cap, max)	((cap) * 1280 < (max) * 1024)
>   
> +/*
> + * The margin used when comparing CPU capacities.
> + * is 'cap1' noticeably greater than 'cap2'
> + *
> + * (default: ~5%)
> + */
> +#define capacity_greater(cap1, cap2) ((cap1) * 1024 > (cap2) * 1078)
>   #endif
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH