linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/deadline: Fix fair

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aFFgi_9yxLN-auBE@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:33:15 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kuyo Chang <kuyo.chang@...iatek.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	jstultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/deadline: Fix fair_server runtime calculation
 formula

On 17/06/25 10:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 10:04:55AM +0800, Kuyo Chang wrote:
> > From: kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@...iatek.com>
> > 
> > [Symptom]
> > The calculation formula for fair_server runtime is based on
> > Frequency/CPU scale-invariance.
> > This will cause excessive RT latency (expect absolute time).
> > 
> > [Analysis]
> > Consider the following case under a Big.LITTLE architecture:
> > 
> > Assume the runtime is : 50,000,000 ns, and FIE/CIE as below
> > FIE: 100
> > CIE:50
> > First by FIE, the runtime is scaled to 50,000,000 * 100 >> 10 = 4,882,812
> > Then by CIE, it is further scaled to 4,882,812 * 50 >> 10 = 238,418.
> 
> What's this FIE/CIE stuff? Is that some ARM lingo?
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index ad45a8fea245..8bfa846cf0dc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -1504,7 +1504,10 @@ static void update_curr_dl_se(struct rq *rq, struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, s64
> >  	if (dl_entity_is_special(dl_se))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	scaled_delta_exec = dl_scaled_delta_exec(rq, dl_se, delta_exec);
> > +	if (dl_se == &rq->fair_server)
> > +		scaled_delta_exec = delta_exec;
> > +	else
> > +		scaled_delta_exec = dl_scaled_delta_exec(rq, dl_se, delta_exec);
> 
> Juri, the point it a bit moot atm, but is this something specific to the
> fair_server in particular, or all servers?

I believe for other servers (i.e., rt-server work from Yuri and Luca) it
might be useful to have it configurable somehow. I actually had a recent
discussion about this concerning single task entities (traditional
deadline servers) for which as well there might be cases where one might
want not to scale considering frequency and capacity.

> Because if this is something all servers require then the above is
> ofcourse wrong.

To me it looks like we want this (no scaling) for fair_server (and
possibly scx_server?) as for them we are only looking into a 'fixed
time' type of isolation. Full fledged servers (hierarchical scheduling)
maybe have it configurable, or enabled by default as a start (as we have
it today).

Best,
Juri