linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized

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: <CAKfTPtDH-0FrmYfH-61c+_TSM3DPtz9na47DuLYBxkwr8MmCkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:20:23 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, qyousef@...alina.io,
        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 v4] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 12:42, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>
> On 19/01/2023 17:42, 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 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 v3:
> > - Keep current condition for uclamp_max_fits in util_fits_cpu()
> > - Update some comments
>
> We had already this discussion whether this patch can also remove
> Capacity Inversion (CapInv).
>
> After studying the code again, I'm not so sure anymore.
>
> This patch:
>
> (1) adds a dedicated return value (-1) to util_fits_cpu() when:
>
> `util fits 80% capacity_of() && util < uclamp_min && uclamp_min >
> capacity_orig_thermal (region c)`
>
> (2) Enhancements to the CPU selection in sic() and feec() to cater for
> this new return value.
>
> IMHO this doesn't make the intention of CapInv in util_fits_cpu()
> obsolete, which is using:
>
> in CapInv:
>
>   capacity_orig         = capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg
>   capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg
>
> not in CapInv:
>
>   capacity_orig         = capacity_orig_of()
>   capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig_of() - th_pressure
>
> Maybe I still miss a bit of the story?
>
> v3 hints to removing the bits in the next version:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230115001906.v7uq4ddodrbvye7d@airbuntu
>
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index d4db72f8f84e..54e14da53274 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4561,8 +4561,8 @@ 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;
>
> Or does the definition 'return -1 if util fits but uclamp doesn't' make
> the distinction between capacity_orig and capacity_orig_thermal obsolete
> and so CapInv?

Yes, that's the key point. When it returns -1, we will continue to
look for a possible cpu with better performance which replaces CapInv
with capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg to detect a capacity
inversion.

>
> [...]
>
> >  static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > @@ -6138,6 +6142,7 @@ 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 utilization doesn't fits CPU's capacity */
>
> small typo: s/doesn't fits/doesn't fit
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -6946,12 +6952,28 @@ 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 requirements */
> > +             if (fits > 0)
> >                       return cpu;
> > +             /*
> > +              * Only the min performance hint (i.e. uclamp_min) doesn't fit.
> > +              * Look for the CPU with best capacity.
> > +              */
> > +             else if (fits < 0)
> > +                     cpu_cap = capacity_orig_of(cpu) - thermal_load_avg(cpu_rq(cpu));
>
> Still don't grasp why we use thermal_load_avg() here? Looks to me that
> this would only match the CapInv case in util_fits_cpu().
>
> [...]
>