linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: adjust SCHED

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:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:56:57 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, 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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: adjust SCHED_IDLE interactions

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 14:52, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:31:49PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:00, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > @@ -4216,7 +4228,15 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
> > >                 if (sched_feat(GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS))
> > >                         thresh >>= 1;
> > >
> > > -               vruntime -= thresh;
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * Don't give sleep credit to a SCHED_IDLE entity if we're
> > > +                * placing it onto a cfs_rq with non SCHED_IDLE entities.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (!se_is_idle(se) ||
> > > +                   cfs_rq->h_nr_running == cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running)
>
> I really dislike that second clause, either never do this for idle or
> always, but not sometimes when the planets are aligned just right.

That was my point too

>
> > Can't this condition above create unfairness between idle entities ?
> > idle thread 1 wake up while normal thread is running
> > normal thread thread sleeps immediately after
> > idle thread 2 wakes up just after and gets some credits compared to the 1st one.
>
> No. Strictly speaking cfs is unfair here. But it's a really tricky case.
>
> Consider a task that is running 50% competing against a task that's
> running 100%. What's fair in that situation, a 50/50 split, or a 25/75
> split? What if that 50% is 50% of a minute?
>
> What we do here is fudge the vruntime such that we end up with a 50/50
> split provided the period over which it blocks is less than a slice.
> After that it gradually converges to the 'expected' 25/75 split that
> results from strict runnable competition.
>
> By not letting idle tasks participate in this, we avoid idle tasks
> 'stealing' the !runnable time and they revert back to strict runnable
> competition only.
>
> > > +                       vruntime -= thresh;
> > > +               else
> > > +                       vruntime += 1;
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         /* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
> > > --
> > > 2.32.0.554.ge1b32706d8-goog
> > >