| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <84a8f306-e2f6-4c9e-a150-72ee3c187b64@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:56:16 +0000
From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...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>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Let each sched_class handle uclamp
On 10/03/2025 11:22, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 10/03/2025 12:03, Xuewen Yan wrote:
>> Hi Dietmar,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 6:53 PM Dietmar Eggemann
>> <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2025 03:41, Xuewen Yan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 2:32 AM Dietmar Eggemann
>>>> <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/03/2025 13:01, Xuewen Yan wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:24 AM Dietmar Eggemann
>>>>>> <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2025 14:54, Hongyan Xia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>>> index 857808da23d8..7e5a653811ad 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -6941,8 +6941,10 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>>>>>>> * Let's add the task's estimated utilization to the cfs_rq's
>>>>>>>> * estimated utilization, before we update schedutil.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> - if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE))))
>>>>>>>> + if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE)))) {
>>>>>>>> + uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
>>>>>>>> util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you want to have p uclamp-enqueued so that its uclamp_min value
>>>>>>> counts for the cpufreq_update_util()/cfs_rq_util_change() calls later in
>>>>>>> enqueue_task_fair?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (p->in_iowait)
>>>>>>> cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enqueue_entity() -> update_load_avg() -> cfs_rq_util_change() ->
>>>>>>> cpufreq_update_util()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you do this before requeue_delayed_entity() (1) you will not
>>>>>>> uclamp-enqueue p which got his ->sched_delayed just cleared in (1)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could we change to the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> when enqueue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags
>>>>>> & ENQUEUE_RESTORE))))
>>>>>> + if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED)))
>>>>>
>>>>> Why you want to check ENQUEUE_DELAYED as well here? Isn't
>>>>> !p->se.sched_delayed implying !ENQUEUE_DELAYED).
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, the (!(p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED))) is equal to
>>>> the (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags &
>>>> ENQUEUE_RESTORE)))).
>>>> I just think it might be easier to read using the ENQUEUE_DELAYED flag.
>>>> Because we only allow enq the uclamp and util_est when wake up the delayed-task.
>>>
>>> OK, I see.
>>>
>>> So that means we would not have to move the uclamp handling into the sched
>>> classes necessarily, we could use flags in enqueue_task() as well:
>>>
>>> -->8--
>>>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Align uclamp and util_est and call before freq update
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 14 ++++++++------
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> index b60916d77482..f833108a3b2d 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -1747,7 +1747,8 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>> +static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
>>> + int flags)
>>> {
>>> enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
>>>
>>> @@ -1763,7 +1764,7 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>> if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> - if (p->se.sched_delayed)
>>> + if (p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
>>> @@ -2067,12 +2068,13 @@ void enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>> if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK))
>>> update_rq_clock(rq);
>>>
>>> - p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
>>> /*
>>> - * Must be after ->enqueue_task() because ENQUEUE_DELAYED can clear
>>> - * ->sched_delayed.
>>> + * Can be before ->enqueue_task() because uclamp considers the
>>> + * ENQUEUE_DELAYED task before its ->sched_delayed gets cleared
>>> + * in ->enqueue_task().
>>> */
>>> - uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
>>> + uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p, flags);
>>> + p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
>>>
>>> psi_enqueue(p, flags);
>>>
>>
>> I submitted a patch similar to yours before:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAB8ipk_AvaOWp9QhmnFDdbFSWcKLhCH151=no6kRO2z+pSJfyQ@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> And Hongyan fears that as more complexity goes into each sched_class
>> like delayed dequeue,
>> so it's better to just let the sched_class handle how uclamp is
>> enqueued and dequeued within itself rather than leaking into core.c.
>
> Ah, OK. Your patch didn't have 'sched' in the subject so I didn't see it
> immediately.
>
> I would prefer that uclamp stays in core.c. ENQUEUE_DELAYED among all
> the other flags is already used there (ttwu_runnable()).
>
> task_struct contains sched_{,rt_,dl_}entity}. We just have to be
> careful when switching policies.
I lean towards letting each class handle uclamp. We've seen the trouble
with delayed dequeue. Just like the if condition we have for util_est,
if uclamp is in each class then we can re-use the condition easily,
otherwise we need to carefully synchronize the enqueue/dequeue between
core.c and the sub class.
Also I think so far we are assuming delayed dequeue is the only trouble
maker. If RT and sched_ext have their own corner cases (I think maybe
sched_ext is likely because it may eventually want the ext scheduler to
be able to decide on uclamp itself) then the uclamp inc/dec in core.c
need to cater for that as well. Once a task is in a class, the variables
in another class may be in an undefined state, so checking corner cases
for all the sub-classes in a centralized place like core.c may not even
be easy to get right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists