linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/6] sched/fair: Take into account latency nice at wakeup

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 19:14:52 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        parth@...ux.ibm.com, qais.yousef@....com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
        pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, David.Laight@...lab.com,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        tj@...nel.org, dhaval.giani@...cle.com, qperret@...gle.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/6] sched/fair: Take into account latency nice at wakeup

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 7:11 AM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Take into account the nice latency priority of a thread when deciding to
> preempt the current running thread. We don't want to provide more CPU
> bandwidth to a thread but reorder the scheduling to run latency sensitive
> task first whenever possible.
>
---------->8-------------------
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> +static long wakeup_latency_gran(int latency_weight)
> +{
> +       long thresh = sysctl_sched_latency;
If I understood correctly, this is to consider the latency weight and
'shrink/expand'
current task's time slice thus to facilitate preemption. And may I
know why don't we use
__sched_period() but to use sysctl_sched_latency directly? Is it
possible the rq has
more than 8(sched_nr_latency) tasks thus the period is longer than
sysctl_sched_latency?

Thanks,
Chenyu
> +
> +       if (!latency_weight)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (sched_feat(GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS))
> +               thresh >>= 1;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Clamp the delta to stay in the scheduler period range
> +        * [-sysctl_sched_latency:sysctl_sched_latency]
> +        */
> +       latency_weight = clamp_t(long, latency_weight,
> +                               -1 * NICE_LATENCY_WEIGHT_MAX,
> +                               NICE_LATENCY_WEIGHT_MAX);
> +
> +       return (thresh * latency_weight) >> NICE_LATENCY_SHIFT;
> +}
> +