linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Be less aggressive in calling cpufreq_update

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: <212396c7-8c36-4850-8871-ea4c757a9324@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:51:52 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
 Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>, Chung-Kai Mei <chungkai@...gle.com>,
 Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Be less aggressive in calling
 cpufreq_update_util()

On 08/12/2023 02:52, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Due to the way code is structured, it makes a lot of sense to trigger
> cpufreq_update_util() from update_load_avg(). But this is too aggressive
> as in most cases we are iterating through entities in a loop to
> update_load_avg() in the hierarchy. So we end up sending too many
> request in an loop as we're updating the hierarchy.
> 
> Combine this with the rate limit in schedutil, we could end up
> prematurely send up a wrong frequency update before we have actually
> updated all entities appropriately.
> 
> Be smarter about it by limiting the trigger to perform frequency updates
> after all accounting logic has done. This ended up being in the

What are the boundaries of the 'accounting logic' here? Is this related
to the update of all sched_entities and cfs_rq's involved when a task is
attached/detached (or enqueued/dequeued)?

I can't see that there are any premature cfs_rq_util_change() in the
current code when we consider this.

And avoiding updates for a smaller task to make sure updates for a
bigger task go through is IMHO not feasible.

I wonder how much influence does this patch has on the test results
presented the patch header?

> following points:
> 
> 1. enqueue/dequeue_task_fair()
> 2. throttle/unthrottle_cfs_rq()
> 3. attach/detach_task_cfs_rq()
> 4. task_tick_fair()
> 5. __sched_group_set_shares()
> 
> This is not 100% ideal still due to other limitations that might be
> a bit harder to handle. Namely we can end up with premature update
> request in the following situations:
> 
> a. Simultaneous task enqueue on the CPU where 2nd task is bigger and
>    requires higher freq. The trigger to cpufreq_update_util() by the
>    first task will lead to dropping the 2nd request until tick. Or
>    another CPU in the same policy trigger a freq update.
> 
> b. CPUs sharing a policy can end up with the same race in a but the
>    simultaneous enqueue happens on different CPUs in the same policy.
> 
> The above though are limitations in the governor/hardware, and from
> scheduler point of view at least that's the best we can do. The
> governor might consider smarter logic to aggregate near simultaneous
> request and honour the higher one.

[...]