| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2112180654470.3139@hadrien>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 07:12:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: cpufreq: intel_pstate: map utilization into the pstate range
> As you can see in intel_pstate.c, min_pstate is initialized on core
> platforms from MSR_PLATFORM_INFO[47:40], which is "Maximum Efficiency
> Ratio (R/O)". However that seems to deviate massively from the most
> efficient ratio on your system, which may indicate a firmware bug, some
> sort of clock gating problem, or an issue with the way that
> intel_pstate.c processes this information.
I'm not sure to understand the bug part. min_pstate gives the frequency
that I find as the minimum frequency when I look for the specifications of
the CPU. Should one expect that it should be something different?
> Yup, thanks for the traces, seems like the kind of workloads that
> greatly underutilize the CPU resources. It's not surprising to see
> schedutil give a suboptimal response in these cases, since the limiting
> factor for such latency-bound workloads that spend most of their time
> waiting is how quickly the CPU can react to some event and complete a
> short non-parallelizable computation, rather than the total amount of
> computational resources available to it.
>
> Do you get any better results while using HWP as actual governor
> (i.e. when intel_pstate is in active mode) instead of relying on
> schedutil? With schedutil you may be able to get better results in
> combination with the deadline scheduler, though that would also need
> userspace collaboration.
I have results for Linux 5.9. At that time, schedutil made suggestions
and the hardware made the decisions, mostly ignoring the suggestions from
schedutil. With avrora (mostly 6 concurrent threads, tiny gaps), only 7%
of the execution time is below the turbo frequencies. With h2 (more
threads, larger gaps), 15% of the time is below turbo frequencies. With
xalan (larger number of threads, middle sized gaps), only 0.2% of the time
is below the turbo frequencies.
julia
>
> >
> > thanks,
> > julia
> >
> >> As you've probably realized
> >> yourself, in such a scenario the optimality assumptions of the current
> >> schedutil heuristic break down, however it doesn't seem like
> >> intel_pstate has enough information to make up for that problem, if that
> >> requires introducing another heuristic which will itself cause us to
> >> further deviate from optimality in a different set of scenarios.
> >>
> >> > julia
> >> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Francisco
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > This patch scales the utilization
> >> >> > (target_perf) between the min pstate and the cap pstate instead.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On the DaCapo (Java) benchmarks and on a few exmples of kernel compilation
> >> >> > (based on make defconfig), on two-socket machines with the above CPUs, the
> >> >> > performance is always the same or better as Linux v5.15, and the CPU and
> >> >> > RAM energy consumption is likewise always the same or better (one
> >> >> > exception: zxing-eval on the 5128 uses a little more energy).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 6130:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Performance (sec):
> >> >> > v5.15 with this patch (improvement)
> >> >> > avrora 77.5773 56.4090 (1.38)
> >> >> > batik-eval 113.1173 112.4135 (1.01)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 196.6533 196.7943 (1.00)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 62.6638 59.2800 (1.06)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 218.5988 210.0139 (1.04)
> >> >> > fop 3.5537 3.4281 (1.04)
> >> >> > graphchi-evalN 13.8668 10.3411 (1.34)
> >> >> > h2 75.5018 62.2993 (1.21)
> >> >> > jme-eval 94.9531 89.5722 (1.06)
> >> >> > jython 23.5789 23.0603 (1.02)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 60.2784 59.2057 (1.02)
> >> >> > luindex 5.3537 5.1190 (1.05)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 3.5956 3.3628 (1.07)
> >> >> > lusearch 3.5396 3.5204 (1.01)
> >> >> > pmd 13.3505 10.8795 (1.23)
> >> >> > sunflow 7.5932 7.4899 (1.01)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 39.6568 31.4844 (1.26)
> >> >> > tradebeans 118.9918 99.3932 (1.20)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 56.9113 54.7567 (1.04)
> >> >> > tradesoap 50.7779 44.5169 (1.14)
> >> >> > xalan 5.0711 4.8879 (1.04)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 10.5532 10.2435 (1.03)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 45.5977 45.3454 (1.01)
> >> >> > make sched 3.4318 3.3450 (1.03)
> >> >> > make fair.o 2.9611 2.8464 (1.04)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CPU energy consumption (J):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > avrora 4740.4813 3585.5843 (1.32)
> >> >> > batik-eval 13361.34 13278.74 (1.01)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 21608.70 21652.94 (1.00)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 3037.6907 2891.8117 (1.05)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 23528.15 23198.36 (1.01)
> >> >> > fop 455.7363 441.6443 (1.03)
> >> >> > graphchi-eval 999.9220 971.5633 (1.03)
> >> >> > h2 5451.3093 4929.8383 (1.11)
> >> >> > jme-eval 5343.7790 5143.8463 (1.04)
> >> >> > jython 2685.3790 2623.1950 (1.02)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 2715.6047 2548.7220 (1.07)
> >> >> > luindex 597.7587 571.0387 (1.05)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 714.0340 692.4727 (1.03)
> >> >> > lusearch 718.4863 704.3650 (1.02)
> >> >> > pmd 1627.6377 1497.5437 (1.09)
> >> >> > sunflow 1563.5173 1514.6013 (1.03)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 4740.1603 4539.1503 (1.04)
> >> >> > tradebeans 8331.2260 7482.3737 (1.11)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 6610.1040 6426.7077 (1.03)
> >> >> > tradesoap 5641.9300 5544.3517 (1.02)
> >> >> > xalan 1072.0363 1065.7957 (1.01)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 2200.1883 2174.1137 (1.01)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 9788.9290 9777.5823 (1.00)
> >> >> > make sched 501.0770 495.0600 (1.01)
> >> >> > make fair.o 363.4570 352.8670 (1.03)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > RAM energy consumption (J):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > avrora 2508.5553 1844.5977 (1.36)
> >> >> > batik-eval 5627.3327 5603.1820 (1.00)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 9371.1417 9351.1543 (1.00)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 1398.0567 1289.8317 (1.08)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 10193.28 9952.3543 (1.02)
> >> >> > fop 189.1927 184.0620 (1.03)
> >> >> > graphchi-eval 539.3947 447.4557 (1.21)
> >> >> > h2 2771.0573 2432.2587 (1.14)
> >> >> > jme-eval 2702.4030 2504.0783 (1.08)
> >> >> > jython 1135.7317 1114.5190 (1.02)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 1320.6840 1220.6867 (1.08)
> >> >> > luindex 246.6597 237.1593 (1.04)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 294.4317 282.2193 (1.04)
> >> >> > lusearch 295.5400 284.3890 (1.04)
> >> >> > pmd 721.7020 643.1280 (1.12)
> >> >> > sunflow 568.6710 549.3780 (1.04)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 2305.8857 1995.8843 (1.16)
> >> >> > tradebeans 4323.5243 3749.7033 (1.15)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 2862.8047 2783.5733 (1.03)
> >> >> > tradesoap 2717.3900 2519.9567 (1.08)
> >> >> > xalan 430.6100 418.5797 (1.03)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 732.2507 710.9423 (1.03)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 3362.8837 3356.2587 (1.00)
> >> >> > make sched 191.7917 188.8863 (1.02)
> >> >> > make fair.o 149.6850 145.8273 (1.03)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 5128:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Performance (sec):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > avrora 62.0511 43.9240 (1.41)
> >> >> > batik-eval 111.6393 110.1999 (1.01)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 241.4400 238.7388 (1.01)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 62.0185 58.9052 (1.05)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 240.9488 232.8944 (1.03)
> >> >> > fop 3.8318 3.6408 (1.05)
> >> >> > graphchi-eval 13.3911 10.4670 (1.28)
> >> >> > h2 75.3658 62.8218 (1.20)
> >> >> > jme-eval 95.0131 89.5635 (1.06)
> >> >> > jython 28.1397 27.6802 (1.02)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 60.4817 59.4780 (1.02)
> >> >> > luindex 5.1994 4.9587 (1.05)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 3.8448 3.6519 (1.05)
> >> >> > lusearch 3.8928 3.7068 (1.05)
> >> >> > pmd 13.0990 10.8008 (1.21)
> >> >> > sunflow 7.7983 7.8569 (0.99)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 39.2064 31.7629 (1.23)
> >> >> > tradebeans 120.8676 100.9113 (1.20)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 65.5552 63.3493 (1.03)
> >> >> > xalan 5.4463 5.3576 (1.02)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 9.8611 9.9692 (0.99)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 43.1852 43.1285 (1.00)
> >> >> > make sched 3.2181 3.1706 (1.01)
> >> >> > make fair.o 2.7584 2.6615 (1.04)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CPU energy consumption (J):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > avrora 3979.5297 3049.3347 (1.31)
> >> >> > batik-eval 12339.59 12413.41 (0.99)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 23935.18 23931.61 (1.00)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 3552.2753 3380.4860 (1.05)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 24186.38 24076.57 (1.00)
> >> >> > fop 441.0607 442.9647 (1.00)
> >> >> > graphchi-eval 1021.1323 964.4800 (1.06)
> >> >> > h2 5484.9667 4901.9067 (1.12)
> >> >> > jme-eval 6167.5287 5909.5767 (1.04)
> >> >> > jython 2956.7150 2986.3680 (0.99)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 3229.9333 3197.7743 (1.01)
> >> >> > luindex 537.0007 533.9980 (1.01)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 720.1830 699.2343 (1.03)
> >> >> > lusearch 708.8190 700.7023 (1.01)
> >> >> > pmd 1539.7463 1398.1850 (1.10)
> >> >> > sunflow 1533.3367 1497.2863 (1.02)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 4551.9333 4289.2553 (1.06)
> >> >> > tradebeans 8527.2623 7570.2933 (1.13)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 6849.3213 6750.9687 (1.01)
> >> >> > xalan 1013.2747 1019.1217 (0.99)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 1852.9077 1943.1753 (0.95)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 9257.5547 9262.5993 (1.00)
> >> >> > make sched 438.7123 435.9133 (1.01)
> >> >> > make fair.o 315.6550 312.2280 (1.01)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > RAM energy consumption (J):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > avrora 16309.86 11458.08 (1.42)
> >> >> > batik-eval 30107.11 29891.58 (1.01)
> >> >> > biojava-eval 64290.01 63941.71 (1.01)
> >> >> > cassandra-eval 13240.04 12403.19 (1.07)
> >> >> > eclipse-eval 64188.41 62008.35 (1.04)
> >> >> > fop 1052.2457 996.0907 (1.06)
> >> >> > graphchi-eval 3622.5130 2856.1983 (1.27)
> >> >> > h2 19965.58 16624.08 (1.20)
> >> >> > jme-eval 21777.02 20211.06 (1.08)
> >> >> > jython 7515.3843 7396.6437 (1.02)
> >> >> > kafka-eval 12868.39 12577.32 (1.02)
> >> >> > luindex 1387.7263 1328.8073 (1.04)
> >> >> > lusearch-fix 1313.1220 1238.8813 (1.06)
> >> >> > lusearch 1303.5597 1245.4130 (1.05)
> >> >> > pmd 3650.6697 3049.8567 (1.20)
> >> >> > sunflow 2460.8907 2380.3773 (1.03)
> >> >> > tomcat-eval 11199.61 9232.8367 (1.21)
> >> >> > tradebeans 32385.99 26901.40 (1.20)
> >> >> > tradesoap-eval 17691.01 17006.95 (1.04)
> >> >> > xalan 1783.7290 1735.1937 (1.03)
> >> >> > zxing-eval 2812.9710 2952.2933 (0.95)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > make 13247.47 13258.64 (1.00)
> >> >> > make sched 885.7790 877.1667 (1.01)
> >> >> > make fair.o 741.2473 723.6313 (1.02)
> >> >>
> >> >> So the number look better after the change, because it makes the
> >> >> driver ask the hardware for slightly more performance than it is asked
> >> >> for by the governor.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > min_pstate is defined in terms of cpu->pstate.min_pstate and
> >> >> > cpu->min_perf_ratio. Maybe one of these values should be used instead.
> >> >> > Likewise, perhaps cap_pstate should be max_pstate?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure if I understand this remark. cap_pstate is the max
> >> >> performance level of the CPU and max_pstate is the current limit
> >> >> imposed by the framework. They are different things.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> >> >> > index 8c176b7dae41..ba6a48959754 100644
> >> >> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> >> >> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> >> >> > @@ -2789,10 +2789,6 @@ static void intel_cpufreq_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpunum,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > /* Optimization: Avoid unnecessary divisions. */
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - target_pstate = cap_pstate;
> >> >> > - if (target_perf < capacity)
> >> >> > - target_pstate = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_pstate * target_perf, capacity);
> >> >> > -
> >> >> > min_pstate = cap_pstate;
> >> >> > if (min_perf < capacity)
> >> >> > min_pstate = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_pstate * min_perf, capacity);
> >> >> > @@ -2807,6 +2803,10 @@ static void intel_cpufreq_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpunum,
> >> >> > if (max_pstate < min_pstate)
> >> >> > max_pstate = min_pstate;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > + target_pstate = cap_pstate;
> >> >> > + if (target_perf < capacity)
> >> >> > + target_pstate = DIV_ROUND_UP((cap_pstate - min_pstate) * target_perf, capacity) + min_pstate;
> >> >>
> >> >> So the driver is asked by the governor to deliver the fraction of the
> >> >> max performance (cap_pstate) given by the target_perf / capacity ratio
> >> >> with the floor given by min_perf / capacity. It cannot turn around
> >> >> and do something else, because it thinks it knows better.
> >> >>
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > target_pstate = clamp_t(int, target_pstate, min_pstate, max_pstate);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > intel_cpufreq_hwp_update(cpu, min_pstate, max_pstate, target_pstate, true);
> >> >>
> >>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists