| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:57:15 +0100 From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue On 23/05/2024 10:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote: > >> Booting the kernel with NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE (default to false), things work fine. Then >> if I switch to DELAY_DEQUEUE at runtime, things start using a lot more power. >> >> The interesting bit is if I switch to NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE again at runtime, things don't >> go back to normal. Rather they stay the same, using a lot more energy. > > Ooh, cute.. weird. I'll try and see if we leak state somehow. Hi. I'm working on uclamp anyway so I just gave this series (and all fixes mentioned in this thread) a go. It seems after running with this series for a while, suddenly uclamp_max no longer works. Running a task with uclamp_max of 110 still sees an rq uclamp_max of 1024. Also weirdly, the PELT signal of that uclamp_max is completely broken. It goes up to a very high value and then suddenly drops to almost 0 from time to time. I wonder if the reason Luis saw that is because he was the first one to run delayed dequeue with uclamp. I'm not familiar enough with the series to know how it could possibly affect uclamp so investigating in this front may be worth trying. Maybe some leaked uclamp state on the rq?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists