| 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: <20230117162022.q76yv3sq753tymfl@airbuntu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:20:22 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lukasz.luba@....com, wvw@...gle.com, xuewen.yan94@...il.com,
han.lin@...iatek.com, Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized
On 01/16/23 12:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 01:19, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/13/23 14:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > 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 small util_avg of
> > > may not fit a high capacity cpu because of 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 performance requirement.
> > >
> > > 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 hint.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Change since v2:
> > > - fix a condition in feec()
> > > - add comments
> > >
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index e9d906a9bba9..29adb9e27b3d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -4525,8 +4525,7 @@ 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);
> >
> > I think this hunk is what is causing the overutilized issues Kajetan reported
> > against your patch.
>
> Yeah, I have been to agressive with uclamp_max
>
> >
> > For the big cpu, this expression will always be true. So overutilized will
> > trigger only for little and medium cores.
> >
> > I appreciate writing the boolean in a shorter form might appear like less code,
> > but it makes things harder to read too; the compiler should be good at
> > simplifying the expression if it can, no?
> >
> > Shall we leave the original expression as-is since it's easier to reason about?
> >
> > I think already by 'saving' using another variable we reduced readability and
> > lead to this error. First line checks if we are the max_capacity which is
> > the corner case we'd like to avoid and accidentally lost
> >
> > v1 code was:
> >
> > + max_capacity = (capacity_orig == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > + uclamp_max_fits = !max_capacity && (uclamp_max <= capacity_orig);
> > + fits = fits || uclamp_max_fits;
> >
> > I think that extra variable was well named to help make it obvious what corner
> > case we're trying to catch here. Especially it matches the comment above it
> > explaining this corner case. This auto variable should be free, no?
> >
> > Can we go back to this form please?
>
> Yes, I'm going to come back to previous version
>
> >
> > > fits = fits || uclamp_max_fits;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -4561,8 +4560,8 @@ 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;
> >
> > Here shouldn't this be
> >
> > if (util < uclamp_min) {
> > fits = fits && (uclamp_min <= capacity_orig);
> > if (fits && (uclamp_min > capacity_orig_thermal))
> > return -1;
> > }
> >
> > uclamp_min should fit capacity_orig first then we'd check for the corner case
>
> I don't get why we should test capacity_orig first ?
>
> case 1:
> capacity_orig = 800
> uclamp_min = 512
> capacity_orig_thermal = 400
> util = 200
> util_fits_cpu should return -1
>
> case 2:
> uclamp_min = 900
> capacity_orig = 800
> capacity_orig_thermal = 400
> utili_avg = 200
> util_fits_cpu should return -1 whereas with your proposal above it will return 0
Ah. Our definition of what -1 means is different.
I thought it's a fallback case for when we fit capacity_orig but due to thermal
pressure we'll actually fail to get. So what I understood -1 would be is that:
We fit in capacity_orig but due to thermal pressure we will actually
not get the perf point we'd hope for. So might be worthwhile to search
harder if another CPU can fit.
But your definition is:
If util fits but uclamp_min doesn't (regardless because of thermal
pressure or we fail capacity_orig); then fallback to the cpu with the
highest (capacity_orig - thermal_pressure) that fits util.
Did I get this right?
Hmm, sounds reasonable, I need to sleep on it but this looks better, yes.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
>
> > if thermal pressure is causing it not to fit. And all of this should only
> > matter if utill < uclamp_min. Otherwise util_avg should be driving force if
> > uclamp_max is not trumping it.
> >
> > I need time to update my unit test [1] to catch these error cases as I didn't
> > see them. In the next version I think it's worth including the changes to
> > remove the capacity inversion in the patch.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/qais-yousef/uclamp_test/blob/master/uclamp_test_thermal_pressure.c
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef
> >
> > >
> > > return fits;
> > > }
> > > @@ -4572,7 +4571,11 @@ 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 true only if the cpu fully fits the task requirements, which
> > > + * include the utilization but also the performance.
> > > + */
> > > + return (util_fits_cpu(util, uclamp_min, uclamp_max, cpu) > 0);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > > @@ -6132,6 +6135,7 @@ static inline bool cpu_overutilized(int 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 true only if the utlization doesn't fit its capacity */
> > > return !util_fits_cpu(cpu_util_cfs(cpu), rq_util_min, rq_util_max, cpu);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -6925,6 +6929,7 @@ 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 = 0;
> > > int cpu, best_cpu = -1;
> > > struct cpumask *cpus;
> > >
> > > @@ -6940,12 +6945,28 @@ 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 and performance requirements */
> > > + if (fits > 0)
> > > return cpu;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Only the min performance (i.e. uclamp_min) doesn't fit. Look
> > > + * for the CPU with highest performance capacity.
> > > + */
> > > + else if (fits < 0)
> > > + cpu_cap = capacity_orig_of(cpu) - thermal_load_avg(cpu_rq(cpu));
> > >
> > > - if (cpu_cap > best_cap) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * First, select cpu which fits better (-1 being better than 0).
> > > + * Then, select the one with largest capacity at same level.
> > > + */
> > > + if ((fits < best_fits) ||
> > > + ((fits == best_fits) && (cpu_cap > best_cap))) {
> > > best_cap = cpu_cap;
> > > best_cpu = cpu;
> > > + best_fits = fits;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -6958,7 +6979,11 @@ 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 true only if the cpu fully fits the task requirements
> > > + * which include the utilization but also the performance.
> > > + */
> > > + return (util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu) > 0);
> > >
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > > @@ -7325,6 +7350,9 @@ 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;
> > > + unsigned long best_thermal_cap = 0;
> > > + unsigned long prev_thermal_cap = 0;
> > > struct sched_domain *sd;
> > > struct perf_domain *pd;
> > > struct energy_env eenv;
> > > @@ -7360,6 +7388,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > 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);
> > >
> > > @@ -7412,7 +7441,9 @@ 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);
> > > @@ -7420,7 +7451,9 @@ 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
> > > @@ -7428,6 +7461,7 @@ 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;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -7446,26 +7480,50 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> > > if (prev_delta < base_energy)
> > > goto unlock;
> > > prev_delta -= base_energy;
> > > + prev_thermal_cap = cpu_thermal_cap;
> > > best_delta = min(best_delta, prev_delta);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Evaluate the energy impact of using max_spare_cap_cpu. */
> > > if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 && max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap) {
> > > + /* Current best energy cpu fits better */
> > > + if (max_fits < best_fits)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Both don't fit performance (i.e. uclamp_min) but
> > > + * best energy cpu has better performance.
> > > + */
> > > + if ((max_fits < 0) &&
> > > + (cpu_thermal_cap <= best_thermal_cap))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > cur_delta = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p,
> > > max_spare_cap_cpu);
> > > /* CPU utilization has changed */
> > > if (cur_delta < base_energy)
> > > goto unlock;
> > > cur_delta -= base_energy;
> > > - if (cur_delta < best_delta) {
> > > - best_delta = cur_delta;
> > > - best_energy_cpu = max_spare_cap_cpu;
> > > - }
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Both fit for the task but best energy cpu has lower
> > > + * energy impact.
> > > + */
> > > + if ((max_fits > 0) && (best_fits > 0) &&
> > > + (cur_delta >= best_delta))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + best_delta = cur_delta;
> > > + best_energy_cpu = max_spare_cap_cpu;
> > > + best_fits = max_fits;
> > > + best_thermal_cap = cpu_thermal_cap;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > >
> > > - if (best_delta < prev_delta)
> > > + if ((best_fits > prev_fits) ||
> > > + ((best_fits > 0) && (best_delta < prev_delta)) ||
> > > + ((best_fits < 0) && (best_thermal_cap > prev_thermal_cap)))
> > > target = best_energy_cpu;
> > >
> > > return target;
> > > @@ -10259,24 +10317,23 @@ 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;
> > > @@ -10289,6 +10346,7 @@ 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.
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists