linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cpu_busy_time from exceeding actual_cpu

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: <CAB8ipk-9EVgyii3SGH9GOA3Mb5oMQdn1_vLVrCsSn1FmSQieOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:11:21 +0800
From: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, 
	peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, 
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, 
	vschneid@...hat.com, vincent.donnefort@....com, ke.wang@...soc.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christian.loehle@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cpu_busy_time from exceeding actual_cpu_capacity

Hi Qais

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 6:55 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 06/06/24 15:06, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > Because the effective_cpu_util() would return a util which
> > maybe bigger than the actual_cpu_capacity, this could cause
> > the pd_busy_time calculation errors.
> > So clamp the cpu_busy_time with the eenv->cpu_cap, which is
> > the actual_cpu_capacity.
>
> I actually think capping by pd_cap is something we should remove. Saturated
> systems aren't calculated properly especially when uclamp_max is used.
>
> But this might a bigger change and out of scope of what you're proposing..

I agree, there are other things to consider before doing this.

>
> Did this 'wrong' calculation cause an actual problem for task placement?
> I assume the pd looked 'busier' because some CPUs were too busy.

This will not only affect calculations in scenarios with high temperatures.
Sometimes, users will set scalimg_max_freq to actively limit the CPU frequency,
so that even if the CPU load is large, the CPU frequency will not be very high.
At this time, even if tasks are placed on other CPUs in the same PD,
the energy increment may not be too large, thus affecting core selection.

>
> Was the system in overutilzied state? Usually if one CPU is that busy
> overutilized should be set and we'd skip EAS - unless uclamp_max was used.

As Christian said, This case occurs not only in the overutil scenario,
this scenario holds true as long as the actual-cpu-capacity caused by
the reduction in max cpu frequency is smaller than the cpu util.

Thanks!
---
xuewen
>
> >
> > Fixes: 3e8c6c9aac42 ("sched/fair: Remove task_util from effective utilization in feec()")
> > Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 8a5b1ae0aa55..8939d725023a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -7870,7 +7870,9 @@ static inline void eenv_pd_busy_time(struct energy_env *eenv,
> >       for_each_cpu(cpu, pd_cpus) {
> >               unsigned long util = cpu_util(cpu, p, -1, 0);
> >
> > -             busy_time += effective_cpu_util(cpu, util, NULL, NULL);
> > +             util = effective_cpu_util(cpu, util, NULL, NULL);
> > +             util = min(eenv->cpu_cap, util);
> > +             busy_time += util;
> >       }
> >
> >       eenv->pd_busy_time = min(eenv->pd_cap, busy_time);
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >