linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Introduce short duration task check

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]

Message-ID: <Y8Un9nmJauxpuSVE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:33:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Honglei Wang <wanghonglei@...ichuxing.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
        Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Introduce short duration task
 check

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 12:33:16PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 16/12/2022 07:11, Chen Yu wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -5995,6 +6005,18 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  
> >  static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> >  
> > +static inline void dur_avg_update(struct task_struct *p, bool task_sleep)
> > +{
> > +	u64 dur;
> > +
> > +	if (!task_sleep)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	dur = p->se.sum_exec_runtime - p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime_vol;
> > +	p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime_vol = p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> 
> Shouldn't se->prev_sum_exec_runtime_vol be set in enqueue_task_fair()
> and not in dequeue_task_fair()->dur_avg_update()? Otherwise `dur` will
> contain sleep time.
> 
> Like we do for se->prev_sum_exec_runtime in set_next_entity() but for
> one `set_next_entity()-put_prev_entity()` run section.
> 
> AFAICS, you want to measure the exec_runtime sum over all run sections
> between enqueue and dequeue.

You were thinking of the dynamic PELT window size thread? (which is what
I had to think of when I looked at this).

I think we can still do that with this prev_sum_exec_runtime_vol (can't
say I love the name though). At any point (assuming we update
sum_exec_runtime) sum_exec_runtime - prev_sum_exec_runtime_vol is the
duration of the current activation.