linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/15] sched: EEVDF and latency-nice and/or slice-attr

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: <CA+q576MS0-MV1Oy-eecvmYpvNT3tqxD8syzrpxQ-Zk310hvRbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:54:25 -0500
From:   Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...omium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.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, joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] sched: EEVDF and latency-nice and/or slice-attr

>
> EEVDF fundamentally supports per task request/slice sizes, which is the
> primary motivator for finally finishing these patches.
>
> So the plan is to extend sched_setattr() to allow tasks setting their
> own ideal slice length. But we're not quite there yet.
>
> Having just returned from PTO the mailbox is an utter trainwreck, but
> I'll try and refresh those few patches this week for consideration.
>
> In the meantime I think you found the right knob to twiddle.

Hello Peter,

I am trying to understand a little better the need for the eligibility
checks (entity_eligible). I understand the general concept, but I am
trying to find a scenario where it is necessary. And maybe propose to
have it toggled by a feature flag.

Some of my testing:

All my testing was done on a two core Celeron N400 cpu system 1.1Ghz.
It was done on the 6.5-rc3 kernel with EEVDF changes ported.

I have two CPU bound tasks one with a nice of -4 and the other with a
nice of 0. They are both affinitized to CPU 0. (while 1 { i++ })

With entity_eligible *enabled* and with entity_eligible *disabled*
(always returns 1):
Top showed consistent results, one at ~70% and the other at ~30%

So it seems the deadline adjustment will naturally achieve fairness.

I also added a few trace_printks to see if there is a case where
entity_eligible would have returned 0 before the deadline forced us to
reschedule. There were a few such cases. The following snippet of
prints shows that an entity became ineligible 2 slices before its
deadline expired. It seems like this will add more context switching
but still achieve a similar result at the end.

bprint:               pick_eevdf: eligibility check: tid=4568,
eligible=0, deadline=26577257249, vruntime=26575761118
bprint:               pick_eevdf: found best deadline: tid=4573,
deadline=26575451399, vruntime=26574838855
sched_switch:         prev_comm=loop prev_pid=4568 prev_prio=120
prev_state=R ==> next_comm=loop next_pid=4573 next_prio=116
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bprint:               pick_eevdf: eligibility check: tid=4573,
eligible=1, deadline=26576270304, vruntime=26575657159
bprint:               pick_eevdf: found best deadline: tid=4573,
deadline=26576270304, vruntime=26575657159
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bprint:               pick_eevdf: eligibility check: tid=4573,
eligible=0, deadline=26577089170, vruntime=26576476006
bprint:               pick_eevdf: found best deadline: tid=4573,
deadline=26577089170, vruntime=26576476006
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bputs:                task_tick_fair: tick
bprint:               pick_eevdf: eligibility check: tid=4573,
eligible=0, deadline=26577908042, vruntime=26577294838
bprint:               pick_eevdf: found best deadline: tid=4568,
deadline=26577257249, vruntime=26575761118
sched_switch:         prev_comm=loop prev_pid=4573 prev_prio=116
prev_state=R ==> next_comm=loop next_pid=4568 next_prio=120

In a more practical example, I tried this with one of our benchmarks
that involves running Meet and Docs side by side and measuring the
input latency in the Docs document. The following is the average
latency for 5 runs:

(These numbers are after removing our cgroup hierarchy - that might be
a discussion for a later time).

CFS: 168ms
EEVDF with eligibility: 206ms (regression from CFS)
EEVDF *without* eligibility: 143ms (improvement to CFS)
EEVDF *without* eligibility and with a 6ms base_slice_ns (was 1.5ms):
104ms (great improvement)

Removing the eligibility check for this workload seemed to result in a
great improvement. I haven't dug deeper but I suspect it's related to
reduced context switches on our 2 core system.
As an extra test I also increased the base_slice_ns and it further
improved the input latency significantly.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!