linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH 03/15] sched/fair: Add lag based placement

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: <57c6d8c8-380e-45d9-b9d0-690662fcd6f4@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:04:47 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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,
        youssefesmat@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 03/15] sched/fair: Add lag based placement

On 10/11/23 9:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra Wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:00:22PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 7:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra Wrote:
>>>    		/*
>>> +		 * If we want to place a task and preserve lag, we have to
>>> +		 * consider the effect of the new entity on the weighted
>>> +		 * average and compensate for this, otherwise lag can quickly
>>> +		 * evaporate.
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * Lag is defined as:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   lag_i = S - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * To avoid the 'w_i' term all over the place, we only track
>>> +		 * the virtual lag:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   vl_i = V - v_i <=> v_i = V - vl_i
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * And we take V to be the weighted average of all v:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   V = (\Sum w_j*v_j) / W
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * Where W is: \Sum w_j
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * Then, the weighted average after adding an entity with lag
>>> +		 * vl_i is given by:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   V' = (\Sum w_j*v_j + w_i*v_i) / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *      = (W*V + w_i*(V - vl_i)) / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *      = (W*V + w_i*V - w_i*vl_i) / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *      = (V*(W + w_i) - w_i*l) / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *      = V - w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * And the actual lag after adding an entity with vl_i is:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   vl'_i = V' - v_i
>>> +		 *         = V - w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i) - (V - vl_i)
>>> +		 *         = vl_i - w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * Which is strictly less than vl_i. So in order to preserve lag
>>
>> Maybe a stupid question, but why vl'_i < vl_i? Since vl_i can be negative.
> 
> So the below doesn't care about the sign, it simply inverts this
> relation to express vl_i in vl'_i:
> 
>>> +		 * we should inflate the lag before placement such that the
>>> +		 * effective lag after placement comes out right.
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * As such, invert the above relation for vl'_i to get the vl_i
>>> +		 * we need to use such that the lag after placement is the lag
>>> +		 * we computed before dequeue.
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   vl'_i = vl_i - w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *         = ((W + w_i)*vl_i - w_i*vl_i) / (W + w_i)
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   (W + w_i)*vl'_i = (W + w_i)*vl_i - w_i*vl_i
>>> +		 *                   = W*vl_i
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 *   vl_i = (W + w_i)*vl'_i / W
> 
> And then we obtain the scale factor: (W + w_i)/W, which is >1, right?

Yeah, I see. But the scale factor is only for the to-be-placed entity.
Say there is an entity k on the tree:

	vl_k	= V - v_k

adding the to-be-placed entity i affects this by:

	define delta := w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)

	vl'_k	= V' - v_k
		= V - delta - (V - vl_k)
		= vl_k - delta

hence for any entity on the tree, its lag is offsetted by @delta. So
I wonder if we should simply do offsetting rather than scaling.

> 
> As such, that means that vl'_i must be smaller than vl_i in the absolute
> sense, irrespective of sign.