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: <CABk29Nv-A3VAKTEzyAAcOjcjaBwjKr51UP72AMjxQYCEmrRd=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:18:54 -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 Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 7:24 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:45:28PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Urgh, reading is hard. I hadn't noticed you did per-task accounting (and
> the original changelog doesn't clarify this either).

Yea, I'll add that to the description, along with a few other
implementation details.

> Also, should all this be undef SCHED_DEBUG ? Or be part of SCHEDSTATS ?

schedstats seems like a good home, that way users can avoid most of
the extra overhead if schedstats is disabled.