| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:38:07 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
Hank <han.lin@...iatek.com>,
Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Traverse cpufreq policies to detect
capacity inversion
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 17:40, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 12/27/22 14:33, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> Sorry for late response; it was the holiday season :-)
>
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 at 12:58, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/20/22 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch!
> > >
> > > > Hereafter is what I came with in order to decouple misfit task with cpu
> > > > overutilized. We keep using util_fits_cpu but with 3 values so we can keep
> > > > using it with cpu_overutilized but exclude the case of misfit task
> > > > because uclmap_min. Also select_idle_capacity() and feec() keep selecting the
> > > > big cpu even if it doesn't fit only because of uclamp_min
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized
> > > >
> > > > By taking into account uclamp_min, the 1:1 relation between task misfit and
> > > > cpu overutilized is no more true as a task with a util_avg of 20as an
> > > > example may not fit a 1024 capacity cpu because of a uclamp_min constraint.
> > > >
> > > > Add a new state in util_fits_cpu() to reflect the case that task would fit
> > > > a CPU except for the uclamp_min hint which is a bandwidth requriement.
> > >
> > > nit: mixing uclamp with bandwidth has been a source of a lot of confusion when
> > > discussing uclamp. Can we use performance requirement instead please?
> >
> > ok
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Use -1 to reflect that a CPU doesn't fit only because of uclamp_min so we
> > > > can use this new value to take additional action to select the best cpu
> > > > that doesn't match uclamp_min.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > index 4423681baf15..705335d6af65 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -4578,8 +4578,7 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > * 2. The system is being saturated when we're operating near
> > > > * max capacity, it doesn't make sense to block overutilized.
> > > > */
> > > > - uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_orig == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > > > - uclamp_max_fits = !uclamp_max_fits && (uclamp_max <= capacity_orig);
> > > > + uclamp_max_fits = (uclamp_max <= capacity_orig) || (capacity_orig == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > > > fits = fits || uclamp_max_fits;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -4614,8 +4613,8 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > * handle the case uclamp_min > uclamp_max.
> > > > */
> > > > uclamp_min = min(uclamp_min, uclamp_max);
> > > > - if (util < uclamp_min && capacity_orig != SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> > > > - fits = fits && (uclamp_min <= capacity_orig_thermal);
> > > > + if (fits && (util < uclamp_min) && (uclamp_min > capacity_orig_thermal))
> > > > + return -1;
> > > >
> > > > return fits;
> > >
> > > nit: return !!fits?
> > >
> > > We check explicitly == 1 below and I'm not sure all the boolean check above
> > > will guarantee we will end up return 1 for true on all combination of
> > > compilerls/archs.
> > >
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -4625,7 +4624,7 @@ static inline int task_fits_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > > > unsigned long uclamp_min = uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN);
> > > > unsigned long uclamp_max = uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX);
> > > > unsigned long util = task_util_est(p);
> > > > - return util_fits_cpu(util, uclamp_min, uclamp_max, cpu);
> > > > + return (util_fits_cpu(util, uclamp_min, uclamp_max, cpu) == 1);
> > >
> > > Or make this > 0?
> >
> > yes, will use > 0
> >
> > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > > > @@ -6064,7 +6063,10 @@ static inline void hrtick_update(struct rq *rq)
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > static inline bool cpu_overutilized(int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > - return !fits_capacity(cpu_util_cfs(cpu), capacity_of(cpu));
> > > > + unsigned long rq_util_min = uclamp_rq_get(cpu_rq(cpu), UCLAMP_MIN);
> > > > + unsigned long rq_util_max = uclamp_rq_get(cpu_rq(cpu), UCLAMP_MAX);
> > > > +
> > > > + return !util_fits_cpu(cpu_util_cfs(cpu), rq_util_min, rq_util_max, cpu);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static inline void update_overutilized_status(struct rq *rq)
> > > > @@ -6857,6 +6859,7 @@ static int
> > > > select_idle_capacity(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned long task_util, util_min, util_max, best_cap = 0;
> > > > + int fits, best_fits = -1;
> > > > int cpu, best_cpu = -1;
> > > > struct cpumask *cpus;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -6872,12 +6875,24 @@ select_idle_capacity(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
> > > >
> > > > if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu) && !sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
> > > > continue;
> > > > - if (util_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, cpu))
> > > > +
> > > > + fits = util_fits_cpu(task_util, util_min, util_max, cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* This cpu fits with all capacity requirements */
> > >
> > > nit: s#capacity#capacity & performance#?
> > >
> > > > + if (fits > 0)
> > > > return cpu;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Only the min bandwidth (i.e. uclamp_min) doesn't fit. Look
> > > > + * for the cpu with highest bandwidth capacity.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > s/bandwidth/performance/?
> > >
> > > > + else if (fits < 0)
> > > > + cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu) - thermal_load_avg(cpu_rq(cpu));
> > >
> > > Hmm. Isn't capacity_of() already takes into account thermal_load_avg()?
> > >
> > > Did you mean capacity_orig_of()?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - if (cpu_cap > best_cap) {
> > > > + if ((fits > best_fits) ||
> > > > + ((fits == best_fits) && (cpu_cap > best_cap))) {
> > > > best_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > > best_cpu = cpu;
> > > > + best_fits = fits;
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this logic is correct. It's a bit of a mind bender.
> > >
> > > @iter#0
> > >
> > > fits <= 0
> > > best_fits <= -1
> > >
> > > if (fits > best_fits) // 0 > -1 => True
> > > ... // update best_cap if larger
> > > best_fits <= 0
> > >
> > > @iter#1
> > >
> > > fits <= -1
> > > best_fits <= 0
> > >
> > > if (fits > best_fits) // -1 > 0 => False
> > >
> > > if (fits == best_fits) // -1 == 0 => False
> > >
> > > // We will never update best_cap for all fits = -1 after
> > > // encountering the first fits = 0
> > >
> > > I think we should reverse the initial values and split the conditions
> >
> > The copy/paste from feec() was too quick. It should be :
> >
> > + if ((fits < best_fits) ||
> > + ((fits == best_fits) && (cpu_cap > best_cap))) {
> >
> > I don't think that the split gives any benefit but makes it more
> > difficult to read. I will add a comment
> > /*
> > * Select the CPU which fits better first (-1 being better than 0).
> > * Then, select the one with the largest capacity at the same level.
> > */
>
> I think that should work yes. I might have gotten confused; I'll look closely
> again in the new version in case I caught something before but I forgot about
> now.
>
> >
> > >
> > > int fits, best_fits = 0;
> > >
> > > if ((fits < best_fits)) {
> > > /* Reset best_cap for first "fits_but" */
> > > best_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > best_cpu = cpu;
> > > best_fits = fits;
> > > } else if ((fits == best_fits) && (cpu_cap > best_cap))) {
> > > best_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > best_cpu = cpu;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Which give us
> > >
> > > @iter#0
> > >
> > > fits <= 0
> > > best_fits <= 0
> > >
> > > if (fits < best_fits) // 0 < 0 => False
> > >
> > > if (fits == best_fits) // 0 == 0 => True
> > > ... // update best_cap if larger
> > >
> > > @iter#1
> > >
> > > fits <= -1
> > > best_fits <= 0
> > >
> > > if (fits < best_fits) // -1 < 0 => True
> > > ... // reset best_cap to first "fits_but" hit
> > > best_fits <= -1
> > >
> > > @iter#2
> > >
> > > fits <= 0
> > > best_fits <= -1
> > >
> > > if (fits < best_fits) // 0 < -1 => False
> > >
> > > if (fits == best_fits) // 0 == -1 => False
> > >
> > > // We should never update best_cap for all fits == 0 now
> > >
> > > @iter#3
> > >
> > > fits <= -1
> > > best_fits <= -1
> > >
> > > if (fits < best_fits) // -1 < -1 => False
> > >
> > > if (fits == best_fits) // -1 == -1 => True
> > > ... // update best_cap if larger
> > >
> > > // Only fits = -1 will update best_cap if larger now
> > >
> > > Of course any hit with fits = 1 will return the cpu immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -6890,7 +6905,7 @@ static inline bool asym_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > if (sched_asym_cpucap_active())
> > > > - return util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu);
> > > > + return (util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu) > 0);
> > > >
> > > > return true;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -7257,6 +7272,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > unsigned long p_util_max = uclamp_is_used() ? uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX) : 1024;
> > > > struct root_domain *rd = this_rq()->rd;
> > > > int cpu, best_energy_cpu, target = -1;
> > > > + int prev_fits = -1, best_fits = -1;
> > > > struct sched_domain *sd;
> > > > struct perf_domain *pd;
> > > > struct energy_env eenv;
> > > > @@ -7288,10 +7304,11 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > unsigned long cpu_cap, cpu_thermal_cap, util;
> > > > unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = 0;
> > > > unsigned long rq_util_min, rq_util_max;
> > > > - unsigned long util_min, util_max;
> > > > + unsigned long util_min = 0, util_max = 1024;
> > >
> > > Why this change? Are you hitting the same warning reported by Dan?
> >
> > While debugging, I got random util_min|max values passed to
> > util_fits_cpu(). I agree that this is not a real problem because it
> > means that !uclamp_is_used() and the values will not be used in
> > util_fits_cpu() in this case but this is a hidden dependency which
> > seems a bit weak.
> >
> > I can probably remove it from this patch as it's out of the scope
>
> Patch 1 of this series addresses this already :-)
Ah yes.
>
> Talking about this serries; I'm confused what's the plan for patch 2 now?
>
> My understanding was Peter should pick 1 and 2 as fixes until we nail this
> patch out.
yes patch 1 and 2 should be merged to fix mainline implementation. As
discussed offline, the end goal remains to remove any kind of external
for loop in load balance
>
> >
> > >
> > > > unsigned long prev_spare_cap = 0;
> > > > int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1;
> > > > unsigned long base_energy;
> > > > + int fits, max_fits = -1;
> > > >
> > > > cpumask_and(cpus, perf_domain_span(pd), cpu_online_mask);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -7344,7 +7361,9 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > util_max = max(rq_util_max, p_util_max);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > - if (!util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu))
> > > > +
> > > > + fits = util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu);
> > > > + if (!fits)
> > > > continue;
> > > >
> > > > lsub_positive(&cpu_cap, util);
> > > > @@ -7352,7 +7371,9 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > if (cpu == prev_cpu) {
> > > > /* Always use prev_cpu as a candidate. */
> > > > prev_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > > - } else if (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap) {
> > > > + prev_fits = fits;
> > > > + } else if ((fits > max_fits) ||
> > > > + ((fits == max_fits) && (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap))) {
> > > > /*
> > > > * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity
> > > > * among the remaining CPUs in the performance
> > > > @@ -7360,6 +7381,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > */
> > > > max_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > > max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
> > > > + max_fits = fits;
> > >
> > > Should we reset best_delta here?
> > >
> > > Because we update max_fits here..
> > >
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -7389,15 +7411,18 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > > if (cur_delta < base_energy)
> > > > goto unlock;
> > > > cur_delta -= base_energy;
> > > > - if (cur_delta < best_delta) {
> > > > + if ((fits > max_fits) ||
> > > > + ((fits == max_fits) && (cur_delta < best_delta))) {
> > >
> > > .. on first first transitions from -1 to 1; this condition will be
> > > skipped if cur_delta is lower than best delta. best_delta here could be the
> > > previous -1 fitting cpu.
> >
> > But we want a cpu that fits in priority then the one with the smallest delta.
>
> Yes; but the smallest delta should be updated when we update the 'priority'.
>
> >
> > >
> > > We should reset best_delta on first transition then look if we encounter
> > > something with a better delta?
> >
> > my mistake... This should be
> >
> > + if ((max_fits > best_fits) ||
> > + ((max_fits == best_fits) && (cur_delta <
> > best_delta))) {
> >
> > I'm going to prepare a new version
>
> Hmm I'll go through this in the new patch.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Qais Yousef
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qais Yousef
> > >
> > > > best_delta = cur_delta;
> > > > best_energy_cpu = max_spare_cap_cpu;
> > > > + best_fits = max_fits;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >
> > > > - if (best_delta < prev_delta)
> > > > + if ((best_fits > prev_fits) ||
> > > > + ((best_fits == prev_fits) && (best_delta < prev_delta)))
> > > > target = best_energy_cpu;
> > > >
> > > > return target;
> > > > @@ -10164,24 +10189,23 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > */
> > > > update_sd_lb_stats(env, &sds);
> > > >
> > > > - if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
> > > > - struct root_domain *rd = env->dst_rq->rd;
> > > > -
> > > > - if (rcu_dereference(rd->pd) && !READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized))
> > > > - goto out_balanced;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - local = &sds.local_stat;
> > > > - busiest = &sds.busiest_stat;
> > > > -
> > > > /* There is no busy sibling group to pull tasks from */
> > > > if (!sds.busiest)
> > > > goto out_balanced;
> > > >
> > > > + busiest = &sds.busiest_stat;
> > > > +
> > > > /* Misfit tasks should be dealt with regardless of the avg load */
> > > > if (busiest->group_type == group_misfit_task)
> > > > goto force_balance;
> > > >
> > > > + if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
> > > > + struct root_domain *rd = env->dst_rq->rd;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (rcu_dereference(rd->pd) && !READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized))
> > > > + goto out_balanced;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > /* ASYM feature bypasses nice load balance check */
> > > > if (busiest->group_type == group_asym_packing)
> > > > goto force_balance;
> > > > @@ -10194,6 +10218,7 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
> > > > if (busiest->group_type == group_imbalanced)
> > > > goto force_balance;
> > > >
> > > > + local = &sds.local_stat;
> > > > /*
> > > > * If the local group is busier than the selected busiest group
> > > > * don't try and pull any tasks.
> > > > --
> > > > 2.17.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!!
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists