linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: simplify __calc

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: <65f3016c-c060-4d74-ad0f-d1981d1c6eeb@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:18:11 +0100
From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
To: Dawei Li <daweilics@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....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>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: simplify __calc_delta()

Hello Dawei,

On 3/6/24 23:28, Dawei Li wrote:
> Based on how __calc_delta() is called now, the input parameter, weight
> is always NICE_0_LOAD. I think we don't need it as an input parameter
> now?

Maybe
   5e963f2bd4654a202a8a05aa3a86cb0300b10e6c ("sched/fair: Commit to EEVDF")
should be referenced to explain that the case where (weight =< lw.weight)
doesn't exist anymore and that NICE_0_LOAD could be incorporated in
__calc_delta() directly.


Also I think indirect forms are preferred in general:
"I think we don't need it as an input parameter now ?" ->
"The 'weight' parameter doesn't seem to be required anymore"
(same note for the whole commit message)

> 
> Also, when weight is always NICE_0_LOAD, the initial fact value is
> always 2^10, and the first fact_hi will always be 0. Thus, we can get
> rid of the first if bock.
> 
> The previous comment "(delta_exec * (weight * lw->inv_weight)) >>
> WMULT_SHIFT" seems to be assuming that lw->weight * lw->inv_weight is
> always (approximately) equal to 2^WMULT_SHIFT. However, when
> CONFIG_64BIT is set, lw->weight * lw->inv_weight is (approximately)
> equal to 2^WMULT_SHIFT * 2^10. What remains true for both CONFIG_32BIT
> and CONFIG_64BIT is: scale_load_down(lw->weight) * lw->inv_weight is
> (approximately) equal to 2^WMULT_SHIFT. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

I think the comment is more about explaining that:
   X * lw.weight
equals:
   X * lw->inv_weight >> WMULT_SHIFT

Also, if CONFIG_64BIT is set, we should have:
   weight / lw.weight == scale_load_down(lw->weight) * 2**10 * lw->inv_weight

So IIUC, either both lines should be update, either none.
(meaning that:
   delta_exec * NICE_0_LOAD / lw->weight
should be changed to
   delta_exec * scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD) / lw->weight
)

I assume it's better to let the comment as is.


> 
> Also updated the comment for calc_delta_fair() to make it more
> accurate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dawei Li <daweilics@...il.com>
> ---
>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6a16129f9a5c..c5cdb15f7d62 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -252,32 +252,23 @@ static void __update_inv_weight(struct load_weight *lw)
>   }
>   
>   /*
> - * delta_exec * weight / lw.weight
> + * delta_exec * NICE_0_LOAD / lw->weight
>    *   OR
> - * (delta_exec * (weight * lw->inv_weight)) >> WMULT_SHIFT
> + * (delta_exec * scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD) * lw->inv_weight) >> WMULT_SHIFT
>    *
> - * Either weight := NICE_0_LOAD and lw \e sched_prio_to_wmult[], in which case
> - * we're guaranteed shift stays positive because inv_weight is guaranteed to
> - * fit 32 bits, and NICE_0_LOAD gives another 10 bits; therefore shift >= 22.
> - *
> - * Or, weight =< lw.weight (because lw.weight is the runqueue weight), thus
> - * weight/lw.weight <= 1, and therefore our shift will also be positive.
> + * We're guaranteed shift stays positive because inv_weight is guaranteed to
> + * fit 32 bits, and scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD) gives another 10 bits;
> + * therefore shift >= 22.
>    */
> -static u64 __calc_delta(u64 delta_exec, unsigned long weight, struct load_weight *lw)
> +static u64 __calc_delta(u64 delta_exec, struct load_weight *lw)
>   {
> -	u64 fact = scale_load_down(weight);
> -	u32 fact_hi = (u32)(fact >> 32);
> +	u64 fact = scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD);
> +	int fact_hi;
>   	int shift = WMULT_SHIFT;
>   	int fs;

NIT: maybe re-ordering the variables to have a reverse tree

Otherwise, the patch looks good to me,
Regards,
Pierre