| 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: <CAKfTPtD7xSYNFBrDTDrOocgz6s2jHT1BaOZkRtb9N825VprMMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:24:13 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Chitti Babu Theegala <quic_ctheegal@...cinc.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
quic_lingutla@...cinc.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_rjendra@...cinc.com, Vincent.Donnefort@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Prefer small idle cores for forkees
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 08:09, Chitti Babu Theegala
<quic_ctheegal@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/21/2022 7:57 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 06:03, Chitti Babu Theegala
> > <quic_ctheegal@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Newly forked threads don't have any useful utilization data yet and
> >> it's not possible to forecast their impact on energy consumption.
> >
> > It would be worth mentioning that you consider only EAS mode in the patch
> >
> >> These forkees (though very small, most times) end up waking big
> >
> > The assumption that " (though very small, most times)" is maybe true
> > for the cases that you are interested in and you monitor, but it's not
> > always true. It seems that Vincent D. raised some concerns about
> > forkee which would not be small at the end
> Agreed.
>
> >> cores from deep sleep for that very small durations.
> >>
> >> Bias all forkees to small cores to prevent waking big cores from deep
> >
> > you are testing idlest_sgs->idle_cpus so you don't bias to small cores
> > but small & idle cores but if there is no small idle core then you
> > will wake up a big core though the forkees are small most times
> >
>
> The function "find_idlest_cpu" expected to return idle cpu. So, I
> followed the same. If idle small cpu is available, then we can use it
find_idlest_cpu() returns the idlest cpu which may not be idle
> otherwise its ok to wakeup big cpu for newly forked tasks.
> I felt that using idle CPUs for new tasks will be better as that would
> give them a faster chance to run immediately.
But this goes at the opposite of your 1st goal which is to not wake up
a big core in deep idle state. Just to say that this doesn't seem that
clear when it's worth waking up a big core
>
> >> sleep to save power.
> >
> > Then why do you want to wake up a small core from deep state instead
> > of packing in one of these already running cpus? If you care about
> > power, selecting a small idle core may not always be the best choice.
> > Would it be better to select a non idle cpu with largest spare
> > capacity at the current opp ?
> >
>
> How about running find_energy_efficient_cpu() for newly forked tasks as
> well (with some default util value configured) ?
Regarding what you are trying to do, I feel that it could be better to
modify and use feec to select a cpu for newly forked task when not
overutilized. Then you can use more input to select the most efficient
cpu
>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chitti Babu Theegala <quic_ctheegal@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> 1. Enclosed the EAS check for this small core preferring logic
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index c6046446c50b3..72f9ea7c98c05 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -5872,7 +5872,7 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> >> }
> >>
> >> static struct sched_group *
> >> -find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu);
> >> +find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu, int sd_flag);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * find_idlest_group_cpu - find the idlest CPU among the CPUs in the group.
> >> @@ -5959,7 +5959,7 @@ static inline int find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - group = find_idlest_group(sd, p, cpu);
> >> + group = find_idlest_group(sd, p, cpu, sd_flag);
> >> if (!group) {
> >> sd = sd->child;
> >> continue;
> >> @@ -8885,7 +8885,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_wakeup_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
> >> static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
> >> struct sg_lb_stats *idlest_sgs,
> >> struct sched_group *group,
> >> - struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> >> + struct sg_lb_stats *sgs,
> >> + int sd_flag)
> >> {
> >> if (sgs->group_type < idlest_sgs->group_type)
> >> return true;
> >> @@ -8922,6 +8923,13 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
> >> if (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus > sgs->idle_cpus)
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> + if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
> >
> > This is not enough, the find_energy_efficient_cpu() returns early to
> > fallback to the default performance mode when the system is
> > overutilized
> >
> >
> >> + /* Select smaller cpu group for newly woken up forkees */
> >> + if ((sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_FORK) && (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus &&
> >> + !capacity_greater(idlest->sgc->max_capacity, group->sgc->max_capacity)))
> >> + return false;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> /* Select group with lowest group_util */
> >> if (idlest_sgs->idle_cpus == sgs->idle_cpus &&
> >> idlest_sgs->group_util <= sgs->group_util)
> >> @@ -8940,7 +8948,7 @@ static bool update_pick_idlest(struct sched_group *idlest,
> >> * Assumes p is allowed on at least one CPU in sd.
> >> */
> >> static struct sched_group *
> >> -find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> >> +find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu, int sd_flag)
> >> {
> >> struct sched_group *idlest = NULL, *local = NULL, *group = sd->groups;
> >> struct sg_lb_stats local_sgs, tmp_sgs;
> >> @@ -8978,7 +8986,7 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> >>
> >> update_sg_wakeup_stats(sd, group, sgs, p);
> >>
> >> - if (!local_group && update_pick_idlest(idlest, &idlest_sgs, group, sgs)) {
> >> + if (!local_group && update_pick_idlest(idlest, &idlest_sgs, group, sgs, sd_flag)) {
> >> idlest = group;
> >> idlest_sgs = *sgs;
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists