linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] psi : calc psi memstall time more precisely

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:24:43 +0800
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xuewen.yan@...soc.com,
        Ke Wang <ke.wang@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] psi : calc psi memstall time more precisely

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:54 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 08:00:24PM +0800, Huangzhaoyang wrote:
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> >
> > psi's memstall time is counted as simple as exit - entry so far, which ignore
> > the task's off cpu time. Fix it by calc the percentage of off time via task and
> > rq's util and runq load.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
>
> Can you please explain what practical problem you are trying to solve?
>
> If a reclaimer gets preempted and has to wait for CPU, should that
> stall be attributed to a lack of memory? Some of it should, since page
> reclaim consumed CPU budget that would've otherwise been available for
> doing real work. The application of course may still have experienced
> a CPU wait outside of reclaim, but potentially a shorter one. Memory
> pressure can definitely increase CPU pressure (as it can IO pressure).
The preempted time which is mentioned here can be separated into 2
categories. First one is cfs task preempted because running out of the
share of schedule_lantency. The second one is preempted by RT,DL and
IRQs. IMO, the previous is reasonable to be counted in stall time,
while the second one NOT.
>
> Proportional and transitive accounting - how much of total CPU load is
> page reclaim, and thus how much of each runq wait is due to memory
> pressure - would give more precise answers. But generally discounting
> off-CPU time in a stall is not any more correct than including it all.
>
> This is doable, but I think there needs to be better justification for
> providing this level of precision, since it comes with code complexity
> that has performance and maintenance overhead.
The rq's utilization of load tracking provides an easy way to compute
such proportion. A new commit has been given out which mainly deals
with the 2nd scenario described above. The statistics of the precision
are provided together.