linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230511220336.05866e80@nowhere>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 22:03:36 +0200
From:   luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.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 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB

Hi,

first of all, thanks for your patience with my comments :)

On Thu, 11 May 2023 14:34:38 -0400
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org> wrote:
[...]
> SMP GRUB paper has the equation for depreciating runtime as:
>   dq_i = -max{u_i, 1 - (extra_bw + Uinact)} dt
> 
> Since we are caping at Umax, the equation would be
>   dq_i = -(max{u_i, Umax - (extra_bw + Uinact)} / Umax) dt (1)
> 
> But existing implementation is:
>   dq_i = -max{u_i/Umax, 1 - (extra_bw + Uinact)} dt (2)
> 
> Here in (2), we factored Umax only to the first term "u_i" and the
> second term in max{} was as left as it is. What do you think?

I agree with you, (1) looks more correct. I do not know why I
implemented (2), but I agree with (1) now.


> Now with normal DL and SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks, equation (1) can be
> re-written as:
>   dq_i =
>    -(max{u_i, Ureclaim_max - (extra_bw + Uinact)}/Ureclaim_max)dt (3)
> 
> I tested this equation (3) and it works as expected. What do you think
> about the correctness of equation (3)?

I agree with this too.

> 
> I felt that, since we are using sequential reclaim mentioned in the
> paper and we isolate all parameters per-cpu(except for extra_bw) we
> could use the "-dq = -(U/Umax) dt" equation as it was simpler than
> equation (3).

This is the part I am not sure about...

Maybe the best way to go is to split the patch: first you implement (1)
(and use div64 to remove the approximation I used), then you implement
(3) in a second patch.

Finally, if removing the max{} is really needed you can do it in a
third patch (but I would try to go with Equation 3 before removing the
max{})


			Thanks,
				Luca