linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare

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: <CAKfTPtCstN-oJ=UsDJrwacj8fm_cq-5N3LAWc_zz32E2FCJgBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:44:00 +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>,
        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: [PATCH 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if
 max_spare_cap is 0

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 17:14, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> When uclamp_max is being used, the util of the task could be higher than
> the spare capacity of the CPU, but due to uclamp_max value we force fit
> it there.
>
> The way the condition for checking for max_spare_cap in
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() was constructed; it ignored any CPU that has
> its spare_cap less than or _equal_ to max_spare_cap. Since we initialize
> max_spare_cap to 0; this lead to never setting max_spare_cap_cpu and
> hence ending up never performing compute_energy() for this cluster and
> missing an opportunity for a better energy efficient placement to honour
> uclamp_max setting.
>
>         max_spare_cap = 0;
>         cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu) - task_util(p);  // 0 if task_util(p) is high
>
>         ...
>
>         util_fits_cpu(...);             // will return true if uclamp_max forces it to fit
>
>         ...
>
>         // this logic will fail to update max_spare_cap_cpu if cpu_cap is 0
>         if (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap) {
>                 max_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
>                 max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
>         }
>
> prev_spare_cap suffers from a similar problem.
>
> Fix the logic by treating -1UL value as 'not populated' instead of
> 0 which is a viable and correct spare capacity value.
>
> Fixes: 1d42509e475c ("sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider uclamp restrictions")
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@...alina.io>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index e29e9ea4cde8..ca2c389d3180 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7390,9 +7390,9 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>         for (; pd; pd = pd->next) {
>                 unsigned long util_min = p_util_min, util_max = p_util_max;
>                 unsigned long cpu_cap, cpu_thermal_cap, util;
> -               unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = 0;
> +               unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = -1UL;
>                 unsigned long rq_util_min, rq_util_max;
> -               unsigned long prev_spare_cap = 0;
> +               unsigned long prev_spare_cap = -1UL;
>                 int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1;
>                 unsigned long base_energy;
>                 int fits, max_fits = -1;
> @@ -7457,7 +7457,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>                                 prev_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
>                                 prev_fits = fits;
>                         } else if ((fits > max_fits) ||
> -                                  ((fits == max_fits) && (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap))) {
> +                                  ((fits == max_fits) &&
> +                                  (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap || max_spare_cap == -1UL) {

Can't we use a signed comparison to include the case of max_spare_cap
== -1 in cpu_cap > max_spare_cap ?

>                                 /*
>                                  * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity
>                                  * among the remaining CPUs in the performance
> @@ -7469,7 +7470,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>                         }
>                 }
>
> -               if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == 0)
> +               if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == -1UL)
>                         continue;
>
>                 eenv_pd_busy_time(&eenv, cpus, p);
> @@ -7477,7 +7478,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>                 base_energy = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p, -1);
>
>                 /* Evaluate the energy impact of using prev_cpu. */
> -               if (prev_spare_cap > 0) {
> +               if (prev_spare_cap != -1UL) {
>                         prev_delta = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p,
>                                                     prev_cpu);
>                         /* CPU utilization has changed */
> @@ -7489,7 +7490,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>                 }
>
>                 /* Evaluate the energy impact of using max_spare_cap_cpu. */
> -               if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 && max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap) {
> +               if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 &&
> +                   (max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap || prev_spare_cap == -1UL)) {
>                         /* Current best energy cpu fits better */
>                         if (max_fits < best_fits)
>                                 continue;
> --
> 2.25.1
>