linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Scheduler changes for v6.8

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: <20240112181805.bjvrkvvkszdfa7co@airbuntu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:18:05 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Scheduler changes for v6.8

On 01/12/24 15:23, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 11/01/2024 19:16, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 18:53, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 09:45, Linus Torvalds
> >> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 00:11, Vincent Guittot
> >>> <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you confirm that cpufreq governor is schedutil and the driver is
> >>>> amd-pstate on your system ?
> >>>
> >>> schedutil yes, amd-pstate no. I actually just use acpi_cpufreq
> >>
> >> Bah. Hit 'send' mistakenly too soon, thus the abrupt end and
> >> unfinished quoting removal.
> >>
> >> And don't ask me why it's acpi_pstate-driven. I have X86_AMD_PSTATE=y, but
> >>
> >>     /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_driver
> >>
> >> clearly says 'acpi-cpufreq'. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. My dmesg says
> > 
> > That seems to be the right place to look
> > 
> >>
> >>     amd_pstate: the _CPC object is not present in SBIOS or ACPI disabled
> >>
> >> which is presumably the reason my machine uses acpi-pstate.
> >>
> >> I will also test out your other questions, but I need to go back and
> >> do more pull requests first.
> > 
> > ok, thanks
> > 
> > I'm going to continue checking what else could trigger such regression
> > having in mind that your system should not have beeb impacted by this
> > changes
> 
> I can't see the regression on my
> 
>   20-core (40-thread) Intel Xeon CPU E5-2690 v2
> 
> with 'schedutil' and 'acpi-cpufreq'.

I tried to reproduce on AMD 3900X 12-Core system. I don't see any difference
in compiling defconfig with and without the two patches reverted. ~1m26s.

using schedutil and acpi-cpufreq driver too.

I disabled CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK and that didn't make a difference.

I would have expected the iowait boost to be the more troublesome being the
more subtle one tbh.