linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/deadline: Improve reclaim bandwidth accuracy for GRUB

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO7JXPhnTWgqUYXBsGoczHC0RVJgsCHeKgVn+-cxtPkjspopMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 14:55:40 -0400
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/deadline: Improve reclaim bandwidth accuracy
 for GRUB

Hi Joel,

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 2:19 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Vineeth,
> Nice work. ;-) Few quick comments below:
>
Thanks :-)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 6:46 PM Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org> wrote:

> > This patch fixes the issue by appropriatley caping the max allowed
> > utilization and also slightly adjusting GRUB algorithm to account
> > for a mix of normal deadline and SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks.
>
> Looked at the patch quickly as I am due for bedtime ;-). I feel like
> this does more than should be done in one patch. So you should
> consider splitting it IMHO.
I think the explanatory comments are what makes this patch look huge.
The code changes are pretty small and simple:
- track bw of SCHED_RECLAIM_TASKS
- modify the reclamation equation.

> > According to the GRUB rule, the runtime is depreciated as a factor
> > of active bandwidth of the runqueue: "dq = -dt", where U is the
>
> Saying "dq = -dt" where U does not make sense because U is not in the
> equation ;-). Suggest rephrase.
>
Sorry about this, I will rephrase it.

>
> > active bandwidth. Also, we do not allocate the full bandwidth of a
> > cpu to deadline task, but only a portion(Umax) to it, so as to avoid
> > deadline tasks starving lower class tasks. The equation could be
> > re-written as "dq = -(U / Umax) * dt"
>
> Isn't the equation in the code right now as:
> dq = -max{ Ui / Umax, (1 - Uinact - Uextra) } dt
>
> ?
>
> That's what the kernel docs say [1].
>
> So what do you mean by "could be re-written" ?
>
> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/scheduler/sched-deadline.html
>
This patch uses a different equation than [1] and updated the kernel
doc as well in patch 2 of this series. I understand "re-written" is
confusing and will rephrase it.

> > Following are the results with this patch:
> >
> > RUN 1: runtime=7ms, deadline=period=10ms, RT capacity = 95%
> > TID[616]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 94.98
> > TID[616]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 95.04
> > TID[616]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 95.01
>
> All these look 100% correct to me. Do these tasks start at the same
> time or are they shifted in their respective activations? Just wanted
> to be sure it behaves the same either way...
>
I have tested both. Actually I tested 3 scenarios:
- Started the threads at the same time
- Started the threads separately (5-10 seconds apart)
- Started the threads at the same time with some of them sleeping for
  a while before spinning. This was to see if transition from
  NonContending to Inactive was showing any issues with this patch.

> > +static inline bool dl_entity_is_reclaim(const struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> > +{
> > +       return dl_se->flags & SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Can this helper addition be split out to a different patch?
>
I feel it could go with this patch as the code changes in this patch
are fairly small and the function is trivial. But I can split it if
you feel that this patch is really huge and needs splitting.

> > +        * Maximum available bandwidth for this runqueue. This is used to
> > +        * calculate reclaimable bandwidth for SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks.
> > +        * By restricting maximum usable bandwidth, we aim to give other
> > +        * tasks on lower classes a chance to run, when competing with
> > +        * SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks.
> >          */
> > -       u64                     bw_ratio;
> > +       u64                     max_bw;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Active bandwidth of SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks on this rq.
> > +        * This will be a subset of running_bw.
> > +        */
> > +       u64                     reclaim_bw;
> > +
>
> And perhaps addition and use of these new fields if it makes sense.
>
> I will take a closer look at your patches later or after v2..
>
Thanks :-)

Vineeth