linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Wait before decaying max_newidle_lb

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: <CAKfTPtDHfvZQ7uKkFHdFX+gjyOW+BaSmJepGiVtfBMpJaUmtFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:19:07 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Wait before decaying max_newidle_lb_cost

On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 12:01, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 14:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Decay max_newidle_lb_cost only when it has not been updated for a while
> > and ensure to not decay a recently changed value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/sched/topology.h |  2 +-
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c            | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  kernel/sched/topology.c        |  2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > index 2f9166f6dec8..c07bfa2d80f2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
> >
> >       /* idle_balance() stats */
> >       u64 max_newidle_lb_cost;
> > -     unsigned long next_decay_max_lb_cost;
> > +     unsigned long last_decay_max_lb_cost;
> >
> >       u64 avg_scan_cost;              /* select_idle_sibling */
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index c4c36865321b..e50fd751e1df 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10239,6 +10239,30 @@ void update_max_interval(void)
> >       max_load_balance_interval = HZ*num_online_cpus()/10;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool update_newidle_cost(struct sched_domain *sd, u64 cost)
> > +{
> > +     if (cost > sd->max_newidle_lb_cost) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * Track max cost of a domain to make sure to not delay the
> > +              * next wakeup on the CPU.
> > +              */
> > +             sd->max_newidle_lb_cost = cost;
> > +             sd->last_decay_max_lb_cost = jiffies;
>
> That's the actual change of the patch: sd->last_decay_max_lb_cost being
> moved forward also when newidle cost is updated from newidle_balance() ?
>
> > +     } else if (time_after(jiffies, sd->last_decay_max_lb_cost + HZ)) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * Decay the newidle max times by ~1% per second to ensure that
> > +              * it is not outdated and the current max cost is actually
> > +              * shorter.
>
> I assume that `max cost` refers here to a local variable of the only
> caller of update_newidle_cost(..., 0) - rebalance_domains()?
>
> "the current max cost" has to be shorter so that
> rq->max_idle_balance_cost also decays in this case. Is this what this
> comment tries to say here?

I refer to the time tracked in sd->max_newidle_lb_cost
here i set current_cost to zero to trigger a possible decay of
sd->max_newidle_lb_cost

>
> [...]