linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: limit sched slice duration

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAoQh_5Jzojz6cpmV6g1ERpLbK_GxC9Nk_u6=v=719ubw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:03:57 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhangqiao22@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: limit sched slice duration

On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:15:42PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 18:14, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 5ffec4370602..2b218167fadf 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -4575,17 +4575,33 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  /*
> > > - * Preempt the current task with a newly woken task if needed:
> > > + * Tick driven preemption; preempt the task if it has ran long enough.
> > > + * Allows other tasks to have a go.
> > >   */
> > >  static void
> > >  check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
> > >  {
> > > -       unsigned long ideal_runtime, delta_exec;
> > >         struct sched_entity *se;
> > > -       s64 delta;
> > > +       s64 delta, delta_exec;
> > > +       u64 ideal_runtime;
> > >
> > > -       ideal_runtime = sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
> > > +       /* How long has this task been on the CPU for [walltime]. */
> > >         delta_exec = curr->sum_exec_runtime - curr->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * Ensure that a task that missed wakeup preemption by a
> > > +        * narrow margin doesn't have to wait for a full slice.
> > > +        * This also mitigates buddy induced latencies under load.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> > > +               return;
> >
> > ideal_runtime can be lower than sysctl_sched_min_granularity. It can
> > be as low as sysctl_sched_idle_min_granularity for idle task. In this
> > case, we want to resched even if(delta_exec <
> > sysctl_sched_min_granularity). That's why the 1st test was still done
> > before
>
> Duh, indeed.
>
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * When many tasks blow up the sched_period; it is possible that
> > > +        * sched_slice() reports unusually large results (when many tasks are
> > > +        * very light for example). Therefore impose a maximum.
> > > +        */
> > > +       ideal_runtime = min_t(u64, sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr), sysctl_sched_latency);
> >
> > I didn't cap ideal_runtime before this test because we have situations
> > where large ideal_runtime is ok: If there is only one normal thread
> > with hundreds of idle threads as an example: Is it acceptable to
> > trigger a useless resched in this case ? That's why I have computed
> > the virtual time generated by the capped version of ideal_runtime.
>
> Yeah; I think that should be fine. It's an edge case, and sched_latency
> is fairly large already.

In this case capping the ideal runtime from the beg is ok and will
ensure max duration before checking for a resched

>
> > >         se = __pick_first_entity(cfs_rq);
> > >         delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
> > > -
> > >         if (delta < 0)
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * Compare @delta [vtime] to @ideal_runtime [walltime]. This means that
> > > +        * heavy tasks (for which vtime goes slower) get relatively more time
> > > +        * before preemption, while light tasks (for which vtime goes faster)
> > > +        * get relatively less time.  IOW, heavy task get to run longer.
> > > +        */
> >
> > After your comment on v1, I looked more deeply on this and the
> > comparison of [vtime] with [walltime] can create a large unfairness.
> > vtime of nice-20 increases by ~250us for 24ms of walltime which means
> > that the nice-20 will have to run for a long time before reaching this
> > walltime delta (assuming the vruntime were similar at the beg)
>
> As I wrote, strictly speaking we should do without this. The entire
> vtime thing is a band-aid.
>
> I'm sure I've tried taking it out at least once; but sadly I seem to
> have forgotten everything relevant :-( That is, I can't tell you why
> this code exists.

This test can trigger resched before the end of the ideal_runtime. I
can only see a benefit with curr task nice prio > 0 when vruntime
increases faster than walltime and will trigger a resched before the
end of the [walltime] ideal runtime