linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: forced idle accounting

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: <CABk29NucE__6r3P64Ts3Nbf4sUy5Zkw1sbNNnab9KZ=68ydy=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:45:28 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@...il.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: forced idle accounting

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
>
> > > > +             if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!nr_running)) {
> > > > +                     /* can't be forced idle without a running task */
> > > > +             } else {
> > > > +                     delta *= nr_forced_idle;
> > > > +                     delta /= nr_running;
> > > > +             }
> > >
> > > Now the comment sayeth:
> > >
> > > > +     /*
> > > > +      * For larger SMT configurations, we need to scale the charged
> > > > +      * forced idle amount since there can be more than one forced idle
> > > > +      * sibling and more than one running cookied task.
> > > > +      */
> > >
> > > But why?
> >
> > We scale by the number of cpus actually forced idle, since we don't
> > want to falsely over or under charge forced idle time (defined
> > strictly as time where we have a runnable task but idle the cpu). The
> > more important scaling here though is the division over the number of
> > running entities. This is done so that the aggregate amount of forced
> > idle over some group of threads makes sense. Ie if we have a cpu with
> > SMT8, and a group of 7 threads sharing a cookie, we don't want to
> > accrue 7 units of forced idle time per unit time while the 8th SMT is
> > forced idle.
>
> So why not simply compute the strict per-cpu force-idle time and let
> userspace sort out the rest?

Do you mean to compute force idle solely as a per-cpu value? I think
that would be fine in addition to the per-thread field, but a
desirable property here is proper attribution to the cause of the
force idle. That lets system management understand which jobs are the
most antagonistic from a coresched perspective, and is a signal
(albeit noisy, due to system state and load balancing decisions) for
scaling their capacity requirements.