linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/15] sched/fair: Add avg

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: <CAKfTPtCZ2Thf0=jfhjGe9VHdqBX6=tU7OOzHwv2bDKUVZq+faw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:18:05 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, corbet@....net, qyousef@...alina.io,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com,
        pavel@....cz, qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
        yu.c.chen@...el.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 16:27, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 14:47, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > +static void
> > > +avg_vruntime_add(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > +{
> > > +       unsigned long weight = scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
> > > +       s64 key = entity_key(cfs_rq, se);
> > > +
> > > +       cfs_rq->avg_vruntime += key * weight;
> > > +       cfs_rq->avg_load += weight;
> >
> > isn't cfs_rq->avg_load similar to scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight)  ?
> >
> > > +}
>
> Similar, yes, but not quite the same in two ways:
>
>  - it's sometimes off by one entry due to ordering of operations -- this
>    is probably fixable.
>
>  - it does the scale down after addition, whereas this does the scale
>    down before addition, esp for multiple low weight entries this makes
>    a significant difference.

Ah yes, we are still using the the scaled down value for computation

>